Diocese

(Lat. diœcesis)

A Diocese is the territory or churches subject to the jurisdiction of a bishop.

I. ORIGIN OF TERM

Originally the term diocese (Gr. dioikesis) signified management of a household, thence administration or government in general. This term was soon used in Roman law to designate the territory dependent for its administration upon a city (civitas). What in Latin was called ager, or territorium, namely a district subject to a city, was habitually known in the Roman East as a diœcesis. But as the Christian bishop generally resided in a civitas, the territory administered by him, being usually conterminous with the juridical territory of the city, came to be known ecclesiastically by its usual civil term, diocese. This name was also given to the administrative subdivision of some provinces ruled by legates (legati) under the authority of the governor of the province. Finally, Diocletian designated by this name the twelve great divisions which he established in the empire, and over each of which he placed a vicarius (Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1903, V, 1, 716 sqq.). The original term for local groups of the faithful subject to a bishop was ekklesia (church), and at a later date, paroikia, i. e. the neighbourhood (Lat. porœcia, parochia). The Apostolic Canons (xiv, xv), and the Council of Nicæa in 325 (can. xvi) applied this latter term to the territory subject to a bishop. This term was retained in the East, where the Council of Constantinople (381) reserved the word diocese for the territory subject to a patriarch (can. ii). In the West also parochia was long used to designate an episcopal see. About 850 Leo IV, and about 1095 Urban II, still employed parochia to denote the territory subject to the jurisdiction of a bishop. Alexander III (1159-1181) designated under the name of parochiani the subjects of a bishop (c. 4, C. X, qu. 1; c. 10, C. IX, qu. 2; c. 9, X, De testibus, II, 20). On the other hand, the present meaning of the word diocese is met with in Africa at the end of the fourth century (cc. 50, 51, C. XVI, qu. 1), and afterwards in Spain, where the term parochia, occurring in the ninth canon of the Council of Antioch, held in 341, was translated by "diocese" (c. 2, C. IX, qu. 3). See also the ninth canon of the Synod of Toledo, in 589 (Hefele, ad h. an. and c. 6, C. X, qu. 3). This usage finally became general in the West, though diocese was sometimes used to indicate parishes in the present sense of the word (see PARISH). In Gaul, the words terminus, territorium, civitas, pagus, are also met with.

II. HISTORICAL ORIGIN

It is impossible to determine what rules were followed at the origin of the Church in limiting the territory over which each bishop exercised his authority. Universality of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was a personal prerogative of the Apostles; their successors, the bishops, enjoyed only a jurisdiction limited to a certain territory: thus Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch, and Polycarp, of Smyrna. The first Christian communities, quite like the Jewish, were established in towns. The converts who lived in the neighbourhood naturally joined with the community of the town for the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries. Exact limitations of episcopal territory could not have engrossed much attention at the beginning of Christianity; it would have been quite impracticable. As a matter of fact, the extent of the diocese was determined by the domain itself over which the bishop exercised his influence. It seems certain on the other hand, that, in the East at any rate, by the middle of the third century each Christian community of any importance had become the residence of a bishop and constituted a diocese. There were bishops in the country districts as well as in the towns. The chorepiscopi (en chora episkopoi), or rural bishops, were bishops, it is generally thought, as well as those of the towns; though from about the second half of the third century their powers were little by little curtailed, and they were made dependent on the bishops of the towns. To this rule Egypt was an exception; Alexandria was for a long time the only see in Egypt. The number of Egyptian dioceses, however, multiplied rapidly during the third century, so that in 320 there were about a hundred bishops present at the Council of Alexandria. The number of dioceses was also quite large in some parts of the Western Church, i. e. in Southern Italy and in Africa. In other regions of Europe, either Christianity had as yet a small number of adherents, or the bishops reserved to themselves supreme authority over extensive districts. Thus, in this early period but few dioceses existed in Northern Italy, Gaul, Germany, Britain, and Spain. In the last, however, their number increased rapidly during the third century. The increase of the faithful in small towns and country districts soon made it necessary to determine exactly the limits of the territory of each church. The cities of the empire, with their clearly defined suburban districts, offered limits that were easily acceptable. From the fourth century on it was generally admitted that every city ought to have its bishop, and that his territory was bounded by that of the neighbouring city. This rule was stringently applied in the East. Although Innocent I declared in 415 that the Church was not bound to conform itself to all the civil divisions which the imperial government chose to introduce, the Council of Chalcedon ordered (451) that if a civitas were dismembered by imperial authority, the ecclesiastical organization ought also to be modified (can. xvii). In the West, the Council of Sardica (344) forbade in its sixth canon the establishment of dioceses in towns not populous enough to render desirable their elevation to the dignity of episcopal residences. At the same time many Western sees included the territories of several civitates.

From the fourth century we have documentary evidence of the manner in which the dioceses were created. According to the Council of Sardica (can. vi), this belonged to the provincial synod; the Council of Carthage, in 407, demanded moreover the consent of the primate and of the bishop of the diocese to be divided (canons iv and v). The consent of the pope or the emperor was not called for. In 446, however, Pope Leo I ruled that dioceses should not be established except in large towns and populous centres (c. 4, Dist. lxxx). In the same period the Apostolic See was active in the creation of dioceses in the Burgundian kingdom and in Italy. In the latter country many of the sees had no other metropolitan than the pope, and were thus more closely related to him. Even clearer is his rôle in the formation of the diocesan system in the northern countries newly converted to Christianity. After the first successes of St. Augustine in England, Gregory the Great provided for the establishment of two metropolitan sees, each of which included two dioceses. In Ireland, the diocesan system was introduced by St. Patrick, though the diocesan territory was usually coextensive with the tribal lands, and the system itself was soon peculiarly modified by the general extension of monasticism (see IRELAND). In Scotland, however, the diocesan organization dates only from the twelfth century. To the Apostolic See also was due the establishment of dioceses in that part of Germany which had been evangelized by St. Boniface. In the Frankish Empire the boundaries of the dioceses followed the earlier Gallo-Roman municipal system, though the Merovingian kings never hesitated to change them by royal authority and without pontifical intervention. In the creation of new dioceses no mention is made of papal authority. The Carlovingian kings and their successors, the Western emperors, notably the Ottos (936-1002), sought papal authority for the creation of new dioceses. Since the eleventh century it has been the rule that the establishment of new dioceses is peculiarly a right of the Apostolic See. St. Peter Damian proclaimed (1059-60) this as a general principle (c. 1, Dist. xxii), and the same is affirmed in the well-known "Dictatus" of Gregory VII (1073-1085). The papal decretals (see DECRETALS, PAPAL) consider the creation of a new diocese as one of the causœ majores, i. e. matters of special importance, reserved to the pope alone (c. 1, X, De translatione episcopi, I, 7; c. 1, X, De officio legati, I, 30) and of which he is the sole judge (c. 5, Extrav. communes, De præbendis et dignitatibus, III, 2). A word of mention is here due to the missionary or regionary bishops, episcopi gentium, episcopi (archiepiscopi) in gentibus, still found in the eleventh century. They had no fixed territory or diocese, but were sent into a country or district for the purpose of evangelizing it. Such were St. Boniface in Germany, St. Augustine in England, and St. Willibrord in the Netherlands. They were themselves the organizers of the diocese, after their apostolic labours had produced happy results. The bishops met with in some monasteries of Gaul in the earlier Middle Ages, probably in imitation of Irish conditions, had no administrative functions (see Bellesheim, Gesch. d. kath. Kirche in Irland, I, 226- 30, and Lôning, below).

III. CREATION AND MODIFICATION OF DIOCESES

We have noticed above that after the eleventh century the sovereign pontiff reserved to himself the creation of dioceses. In the actual discipline, as already stated, all that touches the diocese is a causa major, i. e. one of those important matters in which the bishop possesses no authority whatever and which the pope reserves exclusively to himself. Since the episcopate is of Divine institution, the pope is obliged to establish dioceses in the Catholic Church, but he remains sole judge of the time and manner, and alone determines what flock shall be entrusted to each bishop. Generally speaking, the diocese is a territorial circumscription, but sometimes the bishop possesses authority only over certain classes of persons residing in the territory; this is principally the case in districts where both the Western and the Eastern Rite are followed. Whatever, therefore, pertains to the creation or suppression of dioceses, changes in their boundaries, and the like is within the pope's exclusive province. As a general rule, the preparatory work is done by the Congregation of the Consistory, by Propaganda when the question relates to territories subject to this congregation, and by the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs when the establishment of a diocese is governed by concordats, or when the civil power of the country has the right to intervene in their creation. We shall take up successively (1) the creation of new dioceses (2) the various modifications to which they are subject, included by canonists under the term Innovatio.

(1) Creation of Dioceses

Strictly speaking, it is only in missionary countries that there can be question of the creation of a diocese, either because the country was never converted to Christianity or because its ancient hierarchy was suppressed, owing to conquest by infidels or the progress of heresy. Regularly, before becoming a diocese, the territory is successively a mission, a prefecture Apostolic, and finally a vicariate Apostolic. The Congregation of Propaganda makes a preliminary study of the question and passes judgment on the opportuneness of the creation of the diocese in question. It considers principally whether the number of Catholics, priests, and religious establishments, i. e. churches, chapels, schools, is sufficiently large to justify the establishment of the proposed diocese. These matters form the subject of a report to Propaganda, to which must be added the number of towns or settlements included in the territory. If there is a city suitable for the episcopal see, the fact is stated, also the financial resources at the disposal of the bishop for the works of religion. There is added, finally, a sketch, if possible accompanied by a map, indicating the territory of the future diocese. As a general rule, a diocese should not include districts whose inhabitants speak different languages or are subject to distinct civil powers (see Instructions of Propaganda, 1798, in Collectanea S. C. de P. F., Rome, 1907, no. 645). Moreover, the general conditions for, the creation of a diocese are the same as those required for dividing or "dismembering" a diocese. Of this we shall speak below.

(2) Modification (Innovatio) of Dioceses

Under this head come the division (dismembratio) of dioceses, their union, suppression, and changes of their respective limits.

(a) Division or Dismemberment of a Diocese

This is reserved to the Holy See. Since the pope is the supreme power in the Church, he is not bound to act in conformity with the canonical enactments which regulate the dismemberment of ecclesiastical benefices. The following rules, however, are those which he generally observes, though he is free to deviate from them. 0151; First, to divide a diocese, a sufficient reason must exist (causa justa). The necessity, or at least the utility, of the division must be demonstrated. There is sufficient reason for the subdivision of a diocese if it be too extensive, or the number of the faithful too great, or the means of communication too difficult, to permit the bishop to administer the diocese properly. The benefit which would result to religion (incrementum cultus divini) may also be brought forward as a reason for the change. In the main, these reasons are summed up in the one: the hope of forwarding the interests of Catholicism. Dissensions between inhabitants of the same diocese, or the fact that they belong to different nations, may also be considered a sufficient reason. Formerly, the mere fact that the endowment of a diocese was very large — a case somewhat rare at the present day — formed a legitimate reason for its division.

The second condition is suitability of place (locucongruus). There should exist in the diocese to be created a city or town suitable for the episcopal residence; the ancient discipline which rules that sees should be established only in important localities is still observed.

Third, a proper endowment (dos congrua) is requisite. The bishop should have at his disposal the resources necessary for his own maintenance and that of the ecclesiastics engaged in the general administration of the diocese, and for the establishment of a cathedral church, the expenses of Divine worship, and the general administration of the diocese. Formerly it was necessary that in part, at least, this endowment should consist in lands; at present this is not always possible. It suffices if there is a prospect that the new bishop will be able to meet the necessary expenses. In some cases, the civil government grants a subsidy to the bishop; in other cases, he must depend on the liberality of the faithful and on a contribution from the parishes of the diocese, known as the cathedraticum (q.v.).

Fourth, generally for the division of a diocese the consent of the actual incumbent of the benefice is requisite; but the pope is not bound to observe this condition. John XXII ruled that the pope had the right to proceed to the division of a diocese in spite of the opposition of the bishop (c. 5, Extrav. common., De præbendis, III, 2). As a matter of fact, the pope asks the advice of the archbishop and of all the bishops of the ecclesiastical province in which the diocese to be divided is situated. Often, indeed, the division takes place at the request of the bishop himself.

Fifth, theoretically the consent of the civil power is not required; this would be contrary to the principles of the distinction and mutual independence of the ecclesiastical and civil authority. In many countries, however, the consent of the civil authority is indispensable, either because the Government has pledged itself to endow the occupants of the episcopal sees, or because concordats have regulated this matter, or because a suspicious government would not permit a bishop to administer the new diocese if it were created without civil intervention (see Nussi, Conventiones de rebus ecclesiasticis, Rome, 1869, pp. 19 sqq.). At present, the creation or division of a diocese is done by a pontifical Brief, forwarded by the Secretary of Briefs. As an example, we may mention the Brief of 11 March, 1904, which divided the Diocese of Providence and established the new Diocese of Fall River. The motive prompting this division was the incrementum reliqionis and the majus bonum animarum; the Bishop of Providence himself requested the division, and this request was approved by the Archbishop of Boston and by all the bishops of that ecclesiastical province. The examination of the question was submitted to Propaganda and to the Apostolic Delegate at Washington. The pope then created, motu proprio, the new diocese, indicated its official title in Latin and in English, and determined its boundaries, which correspond to political divisions, and, finally, fixed the revenues of the bishop. In the case before us these consist in a moderate cathedraticum to be determined by the bishop (discreto arbitrio episcopi imponendum). According to the practice of Propaganda, all the priests who at the time of the division exercised the ministry in the dismembered territory belong to the clergy of the new diocese (Rescript of 13 April, 1891, in Collectanea S. C. de P. F., new ed., no. 1751).

(b) Union of Dioceses

As in the case of the division of a diocese, the union of several dioceses ought to be justified by motives of public utility, e. g. the small number of the faithful, the loss of resources. As in the case of division, the pope is influenced by the advice of persons familiar with the situation; sometimes he asks the advice of the Government, etc. It is a generally recognized principle in the union of benefices, that such union takes effect only after the death of the actual occupant of the see which is to be united to another; at least when he has not given his consent to this union. Though the pope is not bound by this rule, in practice it must be taken into account. The union of dioceses takes place in several ways. There is, first, the unio œque principalis or œqualis when the two dioceses are entrusted for the purpose of administration to a single bishop, though they remain in all other respects distinct; each of them has its own cathedral chapter, revenues, rights, and privileges, but the bishop of one see becomes the bishop of the other by the mere fact of appointment to one of the two. He cannot resign one without ipso facto resigning the other. This situation differs from that in which a bishop administers for a time, or even perpetually, another diocese; in this case there is no union between the two sees. It is in reality a case of plurality of ecclesiastical benefices; the bishop holds two distinct sees, and his nomination must take place according to the rules established for each of the two dioceses. On the contrary, in the case of two or more united dioceses, the election or designation of the candidate must take place by the agreement of those persons in both dioceses who possess the right of election or of designation. Moreover, in the case of united dioceses, the pope sometimes makes special rules for the residence of the bishop, e. g. that he shall reside in each diocese for a part of the year. If the pope makes no decision in this matter, the bishop may reside in the more important diocese, or in that which seems more convenient for the purposes of administration, or even in the diocese which he prefers as a residence. If the bishop resides in one of his dioceses he is considered as present in each of them for those juridical acts which demand his presence. He may also convoke at his discretion two separate diocesan synods for each of the two dioceses or only one for both of them. In other respects the administration of each diocese remains distinct. There are two classes of unequal unions of dioceses (uniones inœquales): the unio subjectiva or per accessorium, seldom put into practice, and the unio per confusionem. In the former case, the one diocese retains all its rights and the other loses its rights, obtains those of the principal diocese, and thus becomes a dependency. When a diocese is thus united to another there can be no question of right of election or designation, because such a dependent diocese is conferred by the very fact that the principal diocese possesses a titular. But the administration of the property of each diocese remains distinct and the titular of the principal diocese must assume all the obligations of the united diocese. The second kind of union (per confusionem) suppresses the two pre-existing dioceses in order to create a new one; the former dioceses simply cease to exist. To perpetuate the names of the former sees the new bishop sometimes assumes the titles of both, but in administration no account is taken of the fact that they were formerly separate sees. Such a union is equivalent to the suppression of the dioceses.

(c) Suppression of Dioceses

Suppression of dioceses, properly so called, in a manner other than by union, takes place only in countries where the faithful and the clergy have been dispersed by persecution, the ancient dioceses becoming missions, prefectures, or vicariates Apostolic. This has occurred in the Orient, in England, the Netherlands, etc. Changes of this nature are not regulated by canon law.

(d) Change of Boundaries

This last mode of innovatio is made by the Holy See, generally at the request of the bishops of the two neighbouring dioceses. Among the sufficient reasons for this measure are the difficulty of communication, the existence of a high mountain or of a large river, disputes between the inhabitants of one part of the diocese, also the fact that they belong to different countries. Sometimes a resettlement of the boundaries of two dioceses is necessary because the limits of each are not clearly defined. Such a settlement is made by a Brief, sometimes also by a simple decretum or decision of the Congregation of the Consistory approved by the pope, without the formality of a Bull or Brief.

IV. DIFFERENT CLASSES OF DIOCESES

There are several kinds of dioceses. There are dioceses properly so called and archdioceses. The diocese is the territorial circumscription administered by a bishop; the archdiocese is placed under the jurisdiction of an archbishop. Considered as a territorial circumscription, no difference exists between them; the power of their pastors alone is different. Generally, several dioceses are grouped in an ecclesiastical province and are subject to the authority of the metropolitan archbishop. Some, however, are said to be exempt, i. e. from any archiepiscopal jurisdiction, and are placed directly under the authority of the Holy See. Such are the dioceses of the ecclesiastical province of Rome, and several other dioceses or archdioceses, especially in Italy, also in other countries. The exempt archbishops are called titular archbishops, i. e. they possess only the title of archbishop, have no suffragan bishops, and administer a diocese. The term "titular archbishop", it is to be noted, is also applied to bishops who do not administer a diocese, but who have received with the episcopal consecration a titular archbishopric. For the better understanding of this it must be remembered that archdioceses and dioceses are divided into titular and residential. The bishop of a residential see administers his diocese personally and is bound to reside in it, whereas the titular bishops have only an episcopal title; they are not bound by any obligations to the faithful of the dioceses whose titles they bear. These were formerly called bishops or archbishops in partibus infidelium, i. e. of a diocese or archdiocese fallen into the power of infidels; but since 1882 they are called titular bishops or archbishops. Such are the vicars Apostolic, auxiliary bishops, administrators Apostolic, nuncios, Apostolic delegates, etc. (see TITULAR BISHOP). Mention must also be made of the suburbicarian dioceses (diœceses suburbicariœ), i. e. the six dioceses situated in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome and each of which is administered by one of the six cardinal-bishops. These form a special class of dioceses, the titulars or occupants of which possess certain special rights and obligations (see SUBURBICARIAN DIOCESES).

V. NOMINATION, TRANSLATION, RENUNCIATION, AND DEPOSITION OF A BISHOP

The general rules relating to the nomination of a residential bishop will be found in the article BISHOP. They are applicable whatever may have been the cause of the vacancy of the diocese, except in the case of a contrary order of the Holy See. The Church admits the principle of the perpetuity of ecclesiastical benefices. Once invested with a see the bishop continues to hold it until his death. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. The bishop may be allowed by the pope to resign his see when actuated by motives which do not spring from personal convenience, but from concern for the public good. Some of these reasons are expressed in the canon law; for instance, if a bishop has been guilty of a grave crime (conscientia criminis), if he is in failing health (debilitas corporis), if he has not the requisite knowledge (defectus scientiœ), if be meets with serious opposition from the faithful (malitia plebis), if he has been a cause of public scandal (scandalum populi), if he is irregular (irregularitas) — c. 10, X, De renuntiatione, I, 9; c. 18, X, De regularibus, III, 32. The pope alone can accept this renunciation and judge of the sufficiency of the alleged reasons. Pontifical authorization is also necessary for an exchange of dioceses between two bishops, which is not allowed except for grave reasons. The same principles apply to the transfer (translatio) of a bishop from one diocese to another. Canonical legislation compares with the indissoluble marriage tie the bond which binds the bishop to his diocese. This comparison, however, must not be understood literally. The pope has the power to sever the mystical bond which unites the bishop to his church, in order to grant him another diocese or to promote him to an archiepiscopal see. A bishop may also be deposed from his functions for a grave crime. In such a case the pope generally invites the bishop to resign of his own accord, and deposes him only upon refusal. As the Holy See alone is competent to try the crime of a bishop, it follows that the pope alone, or the congregation to which he has committed the bishop's trial (Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, the Propaganda, sometimes the Inquisition), can inflict this penalty or pronounce the declaratory sentence required when the law inflicts deposition as the sanction of a specified delinquency. Finally, the pope has always the right, strictly speaking, to deprive a bishop of his diocese, even if the latter is not guilty of crime; but for this act there must be grave cause. After the conclusion of the Concordat of 1801 with France, Pius VII removed from their dioceses all the bishops of France. It was, of course, a very extraordinary measure, but was justified by the gravity of the situation.

VI. ADMINISTRATION OF THE DIOCESE

The bishop is the general ruler of the diocese, but in his administration he must conform to the general laws of the Church (see BISHOP). According to the Council of Trent he is bound to divide the territory of his diocese into parishes, with ordinary jurisdiction for their titulars (Sess. XXIV, c. xiii, De ref.), unless circumstances render impossible the creation of parishes or unless the Holy See has arranged the matter otherwise (Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, nos. 31-33). The bishop needs also some auxiliary service in the administration of a diocese. It is customary for each diocese to possess a chapter (q. v.) of canons in the cathedral church; they are the counsellors of the bishop. The cathedral itself is the church where the bishop has his seat (kathedra). The pope reserves to himself the right of authorizing its establishment as well as that of a chapter of canons. In many dioceses, principally outside of Europe, the pope does not establish canons, but gives as auxiliaries to the bishop other officials known as consultores cleri diœcesani, i. e. the most distinguished members of the diocesan clergy, chosen by the bishop, often in concert with his clergy or some members of it. The bishop is bound to ask the advice of those counsellors, canons or consultors, in the most important matters. The canons possess, in some cases, the right to nullify episcopal action taken without their consent. The consultores cleri diœcesani, however, possess but a consultative voice (Third Plen. Council of Baltimore, nos. 17-22; Plen. Cone. Americæ Latinæ, no. 246. — See CONSULTORS, DIOCESAN). After the bishop, the principal authority in a diocese is the vicar-general (vicarius generalis in spiritualibus); he is the bishop's substitute in the administration of the diocese. The office dates from the thirteenth century. Originally the vicar-general was called the "official" (officialis); even yet officialis and vicarius generalis in spiritualibus are synonymous. Strictly speaking, there should be in each diocese only one vicar-general. In some countries, however, local custom has authorized the appointment of several vicars-general. The one specially charged with the canonical lawsuits (jurisdictio contentiosa), e. g. with criminal actions against ecclesiastics or with matrimonial cases, is still known as the "official" it must be noted that he is none the less free to exercise the functions of vicar-general in other departments of diocesan administration. A contrary custom prevails in certain dioceses of Germany, where the "official" possesses only the jurisdictio contentiosa, but this is a derogation from the common law. For the temporal administration of the church the bishop may appoint an œconomus, i. e. an administrator. As such functions do not require ecclesiastical jurisdiction, this administrator may be a layman. The choice of a layman fully acquainted with the civil law of the country may sometimes offer many advantages (Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, no. 75). In certain very extensive dioceses the pope appoints a vicarius generalis in pontificalibus, or auxiliary bishop, whose duty is to supply the place of the diocesan bishop in the exercise of those functions of the sacred ministry which demand episcopal order. In the appointment of this bishop the pope is not bound to observe the special rules for the appointment of a residential bishop. These titular bishops possess no jurisdiction by right of their office; the diocesan bishop, however, can grant them, e. g., the powers of a vicar-general.

The common ecclesiastical law contains no enactments relating to the rights and powers of the chancellor, an official met with in many dioceses (see DIOCESAN CHANCERY). The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (no. 71) advises the establishment of a chancery in every diocese of the United States. The chancellor is specially charged with the affixing of the episcopal seal to all acts issued in the name of the bishop, in order to prove their authenticity. He appears also in the conduct of ecclesiastical lawsuits, e. g. in matrimonial cases, to prove the authenticity of the alleged documents, to vouch for the depositions of witnesses, etc. Because of the importance of his functions, the chancellor sometimes holds the office of vicar-general in spiritualibus. By episcopal chancery is sometimes understood the office where are written the documents issued in the name of the bishop and to which is addressed the correspondence relating to the administration of the diocese sometimes also the term signifies the persons employed in the exercise of these functions. The taxes or dues which the episcopal chancery may claim for the issuing of documents were fixed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXI, c. i, De ref.); afterwards by Innocent XI (hence their name Taxa Innocentiana), 8 Oct., 1678; finally by Leo XIII, 10 June, 1896. The fiscal of the bishop, also known as promotor or procurator fiscalis, is the ecclesiastic charged with attending to the interests of the diocese in all trials and especially with endeavouring to secure the punishment of all offences cognizable in the ecclesiastical tribunals. An assistant, who is called fiscal advocate (advocatus fiscalis), may be appointed to aid this officer.

Formerly the diocese was divided into a number of archdeaconries, each administered by an archdeacon, who possessed considerable authority in that part of the diocese placed under his jurisdiction. The Council of Trent restricted very much their authority, and since then the office of the archdeacon has gradually disappeared. It exists at the present day only as an honorary title, given to a canon of the cathedral chapter (see ARCHDEACON). On the other hand, the ancient office of vicarii foranei, decani rurales, or archipresbyteri still exists in the Church (see ARCHPRIEST; DEAN). The division of the diocese into deaneries is not obligatory, but in large dioceses the bishop usually entrusts to certain priests known as deans or vicars forane the oversight of the clergy of a portion of his diocese, and generally delegates to them special jurisdictional powers (Third Plen. Council of Baltimore, nos. 27-30). Finally, by means of the diocesan synod all the clergy participates in the general administration of the diocese. According to the common law, the bishop is bound to assemble a synod every year, to which he must convoke the vicar-general, the deans, the canons of the cathedral, and at least a certain number of parish priests. Here, however, custom and pontifical privileges have departed in some points from the general legislation. At this meeting, all questions relating to the moral and the ecclesiastical discipline of the diocese are publicly discussed and settled. In the synod the bishop is the sole legislator; the members may, at the request of the bishop, give their advice, but they have only a deliberative voice in the choice of the examinatores cleri diœcesani, i. e. the ecclesiastics charged with the examination of candidates for the parishes (Third Plen. Council of Baltimore, nos. 23-26). It is because the diocesan statutes are generally elaborated and promulgated in a synod that they are sometimes known as statuta synodalia. In addition to the general laws of the Church and the enactments of national or plenary and provincial synods, the bishop may regulate by statutes, that are often real ecclesiastical laws, the particular discipline of each diocese, or apply the general laws of the Church to the special needs of the diocese. Since the bishop alone possesses all the legislative power, and is not bound to propose in a synod these diocesan statutes, he may modify them or add to them on his own authority.

VII. VACANCY OF THE DIOCESE

We have already explained how a diocese becomes vacant (see V above); here it will suffice to add a few words touching the administration of the diocese during such vacancy. In dioceses where there is a coadjutor bishop with right of succession, the latter, by the fact of the decease of the diocesan bishop, becomes the residential bishop or ordinary (q. v.) of the diocese. Otherwise the government of the diocese during the vacancy belongs regularly to the chapter of the cathedral church. The chapter must choose within eight days a vicar capitular, whose powers, although less extensive, are in kind like those of a bishop. If the chapter does not fulfil this obligation, the archbishop appoints ex officio a vicar capitular. In dioceses where a chapter does not exist, an administrator is appointed, designated either by the bishop himself before his death, or, in case of his neglect, by the metropolitan or by the senior bishop of the province (see ADMINISTRATOR).

VIII. CONSPECTUS OF THE DIOCESAN SYSTEM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The accompanying table of the diocesan system of the Church shows that there are at present throughout the world: 9 patriarchates of the Latin, 6 of the Oriental Rites; 6 suburbicarian dioceses; 163 (or 166 with the Patriarchates of Venice, Lisbon, and Goa, in reality archdioceses) archdioceses of the Latin, and 20 of the Oriental Rites; 675 dioceses of the Latin, and 52 of the Oriental Rites; 137 vicariates Apostolic of the Latin, and 5 of the Oriental Rites; 58 prefectures Apostolic of the Latin Rite; 12 Apostolic delegations; 21 abbeys or prelatures nullius diœcesis, i. e. exempt from the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop. There are also 89 titular archdioceses and 432 titular dioceses.

THOMASSIN, Vetus et nova disciplina ecclesiœ, etc. (Paris, 1691), Part. I, Bk. I, nos. 54-59; LÖNING, Gesch. des deutschen Kirchenrechts (Strasburg, 1878), i, 410; II, 129 sqq.; HANNACK, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig, 1907). 319 sqq.; DUCHESNE, Origines du culte chrétien (Paris, 1902), 11 sqq.; IDEM, Hist. ancienne de l'Eglise (Paris, 1906), I, 524; IDEM, Fastes épiscopaux de l'ancienne Gaule (Paris, 1907); SAVIO, Gli antichi vescovi d'Italia (Turin, 1899), I; WERMINGHOFF, Gesch. der Kirchenverfassung Deutschl. im M. A. (leipzig, 1906); HAUCK, Kirchengesch. Deutschl. (Leipzig, 1896-1903); LINGARD, Hist. and Anyiq. of the Anglo-Saxon Church (reprint. London, 1899); LANIGAN, Eccl. History of Ireland (Dublin, 1829); BELLESHEIM, Gesch. der kathol. Kirche in Irland (Mainz, 1890-91); IDEM, Gesch. der kathol. Kirche in Schottland (Mainz, 1883); tr. HUNTER-BLAIR, History of the Catholic Church in Scotland (London. 1889); HINSCHIUS, System des kathol. Kirchenrechts (Berlin, 1878), II, 378 sqq.; VON SCHERER, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts (Graz, 1886), I, 553 sqq.; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1899), II, 348 sqq.; SÄGMÜLLER, Lehrbuch des kathol. Kirchenrechts (Freiburg, 1900-1904), 231, 346, and bibliography under Bischof; BATTANDIER, Ann. pont. cath. (Paris, 1908); La Gerarchia Cattolica (Rome, 1908); Missiones Catholicœ (Rome, 1907): BAUMGARTEN AND SWOBODA, Die kathol. Kirche auf dem Erdenrund (Munich 1907). For a catalogue of all known Catholic dioceses to 1198, with names and regular dates of occupants, see GAMS, Series episc. eccl. Cath. (Ratisbon, 1873-86), and his continuator EUBEL, Hierarchia Catholica Medii Ævi, 1l98-1431 (Münster, 1899). Cf. also the alphabetical list of all known dioceses, ancient and modern, in MAS-LATRIE, Trésor de chronol. d'hist. et de géog. (Paris, 1889), and the descriptive text of WERNER, Orbis terrar. Catholicus (Freiburg, 1890). For the dioceses, etc. in the missionary territories of the Catholic Church see STREIT, Katholischer Missionsatlas (Steyl, 1906). For details of dioceses in English-speaking countries see Directories, Catholic for United States, England, Ireland, Australia, Canada, India.

A. VAN HOVE.

Dioclea

A titular see of Phyrgia in Asia Minor. Diocleia is mentioned by Ptolemy (V, ii, 23), where the former editions read Dokela; this is probably the native name, which must have been hellenized at a later time; in the same way Doclea in Dalmatia is more commonly called Dioclea. The autonomous rights of Dioclea are proved by its coins struck in the reign of Elagabalus (Head, Hist. Num., 562). It figures in the "Synecdemus" of Hierocles, in Parthey, "Notitiae Episcopatuum" (III, X, XIII), and in Gelzer, "Nova Tactica", i.e. as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century, as a bishopric in Phrygia Pacatiana, the metropolis of which was Laodicea. Only two bishops are known, in 431, and 451 (Lequien, Or. Christ., I, 823). An inscription found nearDoghla, or Dola, a village in the vilayet of Smyrna, shows that it must be the site of Dioclea, though there are no ruins.

RAMSAY, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, 139; IDEM, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, 632, 652, 660, 663.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Diocletian

(Valerius Diocletianus).

Roman Emperor and persecutor of the Church, b. of parents who had been slaves, at Dioclea, near Salona, in Dalmatia, a.d. 245; d. at Salona, a.d. 313.

He entered the army and by his marked abilities attained the offices of Governor of Mœsia, consul, and commander of the guards of the palace. In the Persian war, under Carus, he especially distinguished himself. When the son and successor of Carus, Numerian, was murdered at Chalcedon, the choice of the army fell upon Diocletian, who immediately slew with his own hand the murderer Aper (17 Sept., 284). His career as emperor belongs to secular history. Here only a summary will be given. The reign of Diocletian (284-305) marked an era both in the military and political history of the empire. The triumph which he celebrated together with his colleague Maximian (20 Nov., 303) was the last triumph which Rome ever beheld. Britain, the Rhine, the Danube, and the Nile furnished trophies; but the proudest boast of the conqueror was that Persia, the persistent enemy of Rome, had at last been subdued. Soon after his accession to power Diocletian realized that the empire was too unwieldy and too much exposed to attack to be safely ruled by a single head. Accordingly, he associated with himself Maximian, a bold but rude soldier, at first as Cæsar and afterwards as Augustus (286). Later on, he further distributed his power by granting the inferior title of Cæsar to two generals, Galerius and Constantius (292). He reserved for his own portion Thrace, Egypt, and Asia; Italy and Africa were Maximian's provinces, while Galerius was stationed on the Danube, and Constantius had charge of Gaul, Spain, and Britain. But the supreme control remained in Diocletian's hands. None of the rulers resided in Rome, and thus the way was prepared for the downfall of the imperial city. Moreover, Diocletian undermined the authority of the Senate, assumed the diadem, and introduced the servile ceremonial of the Persian court. After a prosperious reign of nearly twenty-one years, he abdicated the throne and retired to Salona, where he lived in magnificent seclusion until his death.

Diocletian's name is associated with the last and most terrible of all the ten persecutions of the early Church. Nevertheless it is a fact that the Christians enjoyed peace and prosperity during the greater portion of his reign. Eusebius, who lived at this time, describes in glowing terms "the glory and the liberty with which the doctrine of piety was honoured", and he extols the clemency of the emperors towards the Christian governors whom they appointed, and towards the Christian members of their households. He tells us that the rulers of the Church "were courted and honoured with the greatest subserviency by all the rulers and governors". He speaks of the vast multitudes that flocked to the religion of Christ, and of the spacious and splendid churches erected in the place of the humbler buildings of earlier days. At the same time he bewails the falling from ancient fervour "by reason of exccessive liberty" (Hist. Eccl., VIII, i). Had Diocletian remained sole emperor, he would probably have allowed this toleration to continue undisturbed. It was his subordinate Galerius who first induced him to turn persecutor. These two rulers of the East, at a council held at Nicomedia in 302, resolved to suppress Christianity throughout the empire. The cathedral of Nicomedia was demolished (24 Feb., 303). An edict was issued "to tear down the churches to the foundations and to destroy the Sacred Scriptures by fire; and commanding also that those who were in honourable stations should be degraded if they persevered in their adherence to Christianity" (Euseb., op. cit., VIII, ii). Three further edicts (303-304) marked successive stages in the severity of the persecution: the first ordering that the bishops, presbyters, and deacons should be imprisoned; the second that they should be tortured and compelled by every means to sacrifice; the third including the laity as well as the clergy. The atrocious cruelty with which these edicts were enforced, and the vast numbers of those who suffered for the Faith are attested by Eusebius and the Acts of the Martyrs. We read even of the massacre of the whole population of a town because they declared themselves Christians (Euseb., loc. cit., xi, xii; Lactant., "Div. Instit.", V, xi). The abdication of Diocletian (1 May, 305) and the subsequent partition of the empire brought relief to many provinces. In the East, however, where Galerius and Maximian held sway, the persecution continued to rage. Thus it will be seen that the so-called Diocletian persecution should be attributed to the influence of Galerius; it continued for seven years after Diocletian's abdication. (See PERSECUTIONS.)

      Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. in P.G., XX; De Mart. Palæstinæ, P.G., XX, 1457-1520; Lactantius, Divinæ Institutiones, V, in P.L., VI; De Mortibus Persecutorum, P.L., VII; Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, xiii, xvi; Allard, Le persécution de Dioclétien et le triomphe de l'eglise (Paris, 1890); Idem, Le christianisme et l'empire romain (Paris, 1898); Idem, Ten Lectures on the Martyrs, tr. (London, 1907); Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'eglise (Paris, 1907), II.

T.B. Scannell

Diocletianopolis

A titular see of Palaestina Prima. This city is mentioned by Hierocles (Synecdemus, 719, 2), Georgius Cyprius (ed. Gelzer, 1012), and in some "Notitiae Episcopatuum", as a suffragan of Caesarea. Its native name is unknown, and its site has not been identified. One bishop is known, Elisaeus, in 359 (Lequien, Oriens Christianus, III, 646). (2) Another Diocletianopolis was a suffragan see of Philippopolis in Thrace. Its site is unknown. Two bishops are mentioned, Cyriacus in 431, and Epictetus in 451 and 458. A third, Elias, in 553, is doubtful (Lequien, op. cit., I, 1161). (3) Still another Diocletianopolis was a suffragan of Ptolemais in Thebais Secunda (Parthey, Notit. Episc., I). This city also mentioned by Hierocles (op. cit., 732, 3), and by Georgius Cyprius, 772. Gelzer thinks that Diocletianopolis is a later name of Apollinopolis Minor, the Coptic Kos Bebir, and the Arabian Kûs, still existing near Keft (Coptus). (Amélineau, "Géographie de l'Egypte", 490, 573, 576) One bishop of Apollinopolis Minor is known, Pabiscus, mentioned in 431 (Lequien, II, 603).

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Diodorus of Tarsus

Date of birth uncertain; d. about A.D. 392. He was of noble family, probably of Antioch. St. Basil calls him a "nursling" of Silvanus, Bishop of Tarsus, but whether this discipleship was at Antioch or at Tarsus is not known. He studied at Athens, then embraced the monastic state. He became head of a monastery in or near Antioch, and St. Chrysostom was his disciple. When Antioch groaned under Arian bishops, he did not join the small party of irreconcilables headed by Paulinus, yet when Bishop Leontius made Aetius a deacon Diodorus and Flavian threatened to leave his communion and retire to the West, and the bishop yielded. These two holy men, though not priests taught the people to sing the Psalms in alternate choirs (a practice which quickly spread throughout the Church), at first in the chapels of the martyrs, then, at Leontius's invitation, in the churches. When at length, in 361, the Arian party appointed an orthodox bishop in the person of St. Meletius, Diodorus was made priest. He seems to have written some of his works against the pagans as early as the reign of Julian, for that emperor declared that Diodorus had used the learning and eloquence of Athens against the immortal gods, who had punished him with sickness of the throat, emaciation, wrinkles, and a hard and bitter life. In the persecution of Valens (364-78), Flavian and Diodorus, now priests, during the exile of Meletius kept the Catholics together, assembling them on the northern bank of the Orontes, since the Arian emperor did not permit Catholic worship within the city. Many times banished, Diodorus, in 372, made the acquaintance of St. Basil in Armenia, whither that saint had come to visit Meletius. On the return of the latter to his flock, he made Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus and Metropolitan of Cilicia. Theodosius soon after, in a decree, named Diodorus and St. Pelagius of Laodicea as norms of orthodoxy for the whole East. Diodorus was at the Councils of Antioch in 379 and of Constantinople in 381. Sozomen makes him responsible at the latter council for the proposal of Nectarius as bishop of that city, and represents him as one of the chief movers in the appointment of St. Flavian as successor to Meletius, by which the unhappy schism at Antioch was prolonged.

Diodorus came to Antioch in 386 or later, when St. Chrysostom was already a priest. In a sermon he spoke of Chrysostom as a St. John the Baptist, the Voice of the Church, the Rod of Moses. Next day Chrysostom ascended the pulpit and declared that when the people had applauded, he had groaned; it was Diodorus, his father, who was John the Baptist, the Antiochenes could bear witness how he had lived without possessions, having his food from alms, and persevering in prayer and preaching; like the Baptist he had taught on the other side of the river, often he had been imprisoned--nay, he had been often beheaded, at least in will, for the Faith. In another sermon he likens Diodorus to the martyrs: "See his mortified limbs, his face, having the form of a man, but the expression of an Angel!"

St. Basil in 375 asked Diodorus to disown a fictitious letter circulated in his name, permitting marriage with a deceased wife's sister. In the following year he criticizes the rhetorical style of the longer of two treatises sent him by Diodorus, but gives warm praise to the shorter. Diodorus's style is praised by Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Photius, but of his very numerous writings of a few unimportant fragments have been preserved, chiefly in Catenae (q.v). He wrote against some of the heresies and still more against heathen philosophy. Photius gives a detailed summary of his eight books "de Fato"; they were evidently very dull from a modern point of view. According to Leontius he composed commentaries on the whole Bible. St. Jerome says that these were imitations of those of Eusebius of Emesa, but less distinguished by secular learning. Diodorus rejected the allegorical interpretation of the Alexandrians, and adhered to the literal sense. In this he was followed by his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia, and by Chrysostom in his unequalled expositions. The Antiochene School of which he was the leader was discredited by the subsequent heresies of Nestorius, of whom his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia was the precursor. Theodoret wrote to exculpate Diodorus, but St. Cyril declared him a heretic. The damning passages cited by Darius Mercator and Leontius seem, however, to belong to a work of Theodore, not of Diodorus; nor was the latter condemned when Theodore and passages of Theodoret and Ibas (the Three Chapters) were condemned by the Fifth General Council (553). It seems certain that Diodorus went too far in his opposition to (the younger) Apollinarius of Laodicea, according to whom the rational soul in Christ was supplied by the Logos. Diodorus, in emphasizing the completeness of the Sacred Humanity, appears to have asserted two hypostases, not necessarily in a heretical sense. If the developments by Theodore throw a shade on the reputation of Diodorus, the praise of all his contemporaries and especially of his disciple Chrysostom tend yet more strongly to exculpate him. It will be best to look upon Diodorus as the innocent source of Nestorianism (q.v.) only in the sense that St. Cyril of Alexandria is admittedly the unwilling origin of Monophysitism through some incorrect expressions. Against this view are Julicher [in Theol. lit. Z. (1902), 82-86] and Funk [in "Rev. d' hist. eccl.", III (1902), 947-71; reprinted with improvements in "Kirchengesch, Abhandl." (Paderborn, 1907), III, 323].

The fragments of his Commentaries on the Old Testament are collected in Migne, P.G., XXXIII, from the Catena of Nicephorus and that published by Corderius (Antwerp, 1643-6), also from Mai, "Nova Patrum Bibl.", VI. A few more are found in Pitra "Spicilegium Solesmense" (Paris, 1852), I. A long list of the lost works is in Fabricius, "Bibl. Gr.", V, 24 (reprinted in Migne loc. cit.). Some Syriac dogmatic fragments are in Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca", (Leipzig and London, 1858). Four treatises of Pseudo-Justin Martyr have been attributed to Diodorus by Harnack ("Texte und Unters.", N.F., VI, 4, 1901).

JOHN CHAPMAN

Epistle to Diognetus

(EPISTOLA AD DIOGNETUM).

This beautiful little apology for Christianity is cited by no ancient or medieval writer, and came down to us in a single manuscript which perished in the siege of Strasburg (1870). The identification of Diognetus with the teacher of Marcus Aurelius, who bore the same name, is at most plausible. The author's name is unknown, and the date is anywhere between the Apostles and the age of Constantine. It was clearly composed during a severe persecution. The manuscript attributed it with other writings to Justin Martyr; but that earnest philosopher and hasty writer was quite incapable of the restrained eloquence, the smooth flow of thought, the limpid clearness of expression, which mark this epistle as one of the most perfect compositions of antiquity. The last two chapters (xi, xii) are florid and obscure, and bear no relation to the rest of the letter. They seem to be a fragment of a homily of later date. The writer of this addition describes himself as a "disciple of the Apostles", and through a misunderstanding of these words the epistle has, since the eighteenth century, been classed with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The letter breaks off at the end of chapter x; it may have originally been much longer.

The writer addresses the "most excellent Diognetus", a well-disposed pagan, who desires to know what is the religion of Christians. Idol-worship is ridiculed, and it is shown that Jewish sacrifices and ceremonies cannot cause any pleasure to the only God and creator of all. Christians are not a nation nor a sect, but are diffused throughout the world, though they are not of the world but citizens of heaven; yet they are the soul of the world. God, the invisible Creator, has sent His Child, by whom He made all things, to save man, after He has allowed man to find out his own weakness and proneness to sin and his incapacity to save himself. The last chapter is an exposition, "first" of the love of the Father, evidently to be followed "secondly" by another on the Son, but this is lost. The style is harmonious and simple. The writer is a practiced master of classical eloquence, and a fervent Christian. There is no resemblance to the public apologies of the second century. A closer affinity is with the "Ad Donatum" of St. Cyprian, which is similarly addressed to an inquiring pagan. The writer does not refer to Holy Scripture, but he uses the Gospels, I Peter, and I John, and is saturated with the Epistles of St. Paul. Harnack seems to be right in refusing to place the author earlier than Irenaeus. One might well look for him much later, in the persecutions of Valerian or of Diocletian. He cannot be an obscure person, but must be a writer otherwise illustrious; and yet he is certainly not one of those writers whose works have come down to us from the second or third centuries. The name of Lucian the Martyr would perhaps satisfy the conditions of the problem; and the loss of that part of the letter where it spoke more in detail of the Son of God would be explained, as it would have been suspected or convicted of the Arianism of which Lucian is the reputed father. The so-called letter may be in reality the apology presented to a Judge.

The editio princeps is that of Stephanus (Paris, 1592), and the epistle was included among the works of St. Justin by Sylburg (Heidelberg, 1593) and subsequent editors, the best of such editions is in Otto, "Corpus Apologetarum Christ." (3d ed., Jena, 1879), III. Tillemont followed a friend's suggestion in attributing it to an earlier date, and Gallandi included it in his "Bibl. Vett. PP.", I, as the work of an anonymous Apostolic Father. It has been given since then in the editions of the Apostolic Fathers, especially those of Hefele, Funk (2d ed., 1901), Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn (1878), Lightfoot and Harmer (London, 1891, with English tr.). Many separate editions have appeared in Germany. There is an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Library (London, 1892), I. The dissertations on this treatise are too numerous to catalogue; they are not as a rule of much value. Baratier and Gallandi attributed the letter to Clement of Rome, Bohl to an Apostolic Father, and he was followed by the Catholic editors or critics, Mohler, Hefele, Permaneder, Alzog; whereas Grossheim, Tzsehirner, Semisch, placed it in the time of Justin; Dorner referred it to Marcion; Zeller to the end of the second century, while Ceillier, Hoffmann, Otto, defended the manuscript attribution to Justin; Fessler held for the first or second century. These definite views are now abandoned, likewise the suggestions of Kruger that Aristides was the author, of Draseke that it is by Apelles, of Overbeck that it is post-Constantinian, and of Donaldson that it is a fifteenth-century rhetorical exercise (the manuscript was thirteenth- or fourteenth-century). Zahn has sensibly suggested 250-310. Harnack gives 170-300.

JOHN CHAPMAN

Dionysias

A titular see in Arabia. This city, which figures in the "Synecdemos" of Hierocles (723, 3) and Georgius Cyprius (1072), is mentioned only in Parthey's "Prima Notitia", about 840, as a suffragan of Bostra. Lequien (Or christ., II, 865) gives the names of three Greek bishops, Severus, present at Nicaea in 325, Elpidius at Constantinople in 381, and Maras at Chalcedon in 451. Another, Peter, is known by an inscription (Waddington, Inscriptlons . . . de Syrie, no. 2327). Fifteen or sixteen titular Latin bishops are known throughout the fifteenth century (Lequien, op. cit., III 1309; Eubel, I, 232, II, 160). Waddington (op. cit. 529 sqq.) identifies Dionysias with Soada, now es-Sûwêda, the chief town of a caza in the vilayet of Damascus, where many inscriptions have been found. Soada, though an important city, is not alluded to in ancient authors under this name; inscriptions prove that it was built by a "lord builder Dionysos" and that it was an episcopal see. Noldeke admits this view. Gesenius identifies Dionysias with Shohba (Philippopolis), but this is too far from Damascus.

Gelzer, ed., Georgii Cyprii descriptio orbis Romani, 206.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Pope St. Dionysius

Date of birth unknown; d. 26 or 27 December, 268. During the pontificate of Pope Stephen (254-57) Dionysius appears as a presbyter of the Roman Church and as such took part in the controversy concerning the validity of heretical baptism (see BAPTISM under sub-title Rebaptism). This caused Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria to write him a letter on baptism in which he is described as an excellent and learned man (Eusebius, Hist eccl. VII, vii). Later, in the time of Pope Sixtus II (257-58), the same Bishop of Alexandria addressed Dionysius a letter concerning Lucianus (ibid., VII, ix), who this Lucianus was is not known. After the martyrdom of Sixtus II (6 August, 258) the Roman See remained vacant for nearly a year, as the violence of the persecution made it impossible to elect a new head. It was not until the persecution had begun to subside that Dionysius was raised (22 July, 259) to the office of Bishop of Rome. Some months later the Emperor Gallienus issued his edict of toleration, which brought the persecution to an end and gave a legal existence to the Church (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, xiii). Thus the Roman Church came again into possession of its buildings for worship, its cemeteries, and other properties, and Dionysius was able to bring its administration once more into order. About 260 Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria wrote his letter to Ammonius and Euphranor against Sabellianism in which he expressed himself with inexactness as to the Logos and its relation to God the Father (see DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA). Upon this an accusation against him was laid before Pope Dionysius who called a synod at Rome about 260 for the settlement of the matter. The pope issued, in his own name and that of the council, an important doctrinal letter in which, first, the erroneous doctrine of Sabellius was again condemned and, then, the false opinions of those were rejected who, like the Marcionites, in a similar manner separate the Divine monarchy into three entirely distinct hypostases or who represent the Son of God as a created being, while the Holy Scriptures declare Him to have been begotten passages in the Bible, such as Deut., xxxii, 6, Prov., viii, 22, cannot be cited in support of false doctrines such as these. Along with this doctrinal epistle Pope Dionysius sent a separate letter to the Alexandrian Bishop in which the latter was called on to explain his views. This Dionysius of Alexandria did in his "Apologia" (Athanasius, De sententia Dionysii, V, xiii, De decretis Nicaenae synodi, xxvi). According to the ancient practice of the Roman Church Dionysius also extended his care to the faithful of distant lands. When the Christians of Cappadocia were in great distress from the marauding incursions of the Goths, the pope addressed a consolatory letter to the Church of Caesarea and sent a large sum of money by messengers for the redemption of enslaved Christians (Basilius, Epist. lxx, ed. Garnier). The great synod of Antioch which deposed Paul of Samosata sent a circular letter to Pope Dionysius and Bishop Maximus of Alexandria concerning its proceedings (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, xxx). After death the body of Dionysius was buried in the papal crypt in the catacomb of Callistus.

J.P. KIRCH

St. Dionysius

Bishop of Corinth about 170. The date is fixed by the fact that he wrote to Pope Soter (c. 168 to 176; Harnack gives 165-67 to 173-5). Eusebius in his Chronicle placed his "floruit" in the eleventh year of Marcus Aurelius (171). When Hegesippus was at Corinth in the time of Pope Anicetus, Primus was bishop (about 150-5), while Bacchyllus was Bishop of Corinth at the time of the Paschal controversy (about 190-8). Dionysius is only known to use through Eusebius, for St. Jerome (De viris ill., xxvii) has used no other authority. Eusebius knew a collection of seven of the "Catholic Letters to the Churches" of Dionysius, together with a letter to him from Pinytus, Bishop of Cnossus, and a private letter of spiritual advice to a lady named Chrysophora, who had written to him.

Eusebius first mentions a letter to the Lacedaemonians, teaching orthodoxy, and enjoining peace and union. A second was to the Athenians, stirring up their faith exhorting them to live according to the Gospel, since they were not far from apostasy. Dionysius spoke of the recent martyrdom of their bishop, Publius (in the persecution of Marcus Aurelius), and says that Dionysius the Areopagite was the first Bishop of Athens. To the Nicomedians he wrote against Marcionism. Writing to Gortyna and the other dioceses of Crete, he praised the bishop, Philip, for his aversion to heresy. To the Church of Amastris in Pontus he wrote at the instance of Bacchylides and Elpistus (otherwise unknown), mentioning the bishop's name as Palmas; he spoke in this letter of marriage and continence, and recommended the charitable treatment of those who had fallen away into sin or heresy. Writing to the Cnossians, he recommended their bishop, Pinytus, not to lay the yoke of continence too heavily on the brethren, but to consider the weakness of most. Pinytus replied, after polite words, that he hoped Dionysius would send strong meat next time, that his people might not grow up on the milk of babes. This severe prelate is mentioned by Eusebius (IV, xxi) as an ecclesiastical writer, and the historian praises the tone of his letter.

But the most important letter is that to the Romans, the only one from which extracts have been preserved. Pope Soter had sent alms and a letter to the Corinthians:

For this has been your custom from the beginning, to do good to all the brethren in many ways, and to send alms to many Churches in different cities, now relieving the poverty of those who asked aid, now assisting the brethren in the mines by the alms you send, Romans keeping up the traditional custom of Romans, which your blessed bishop, Soter, has not only maintained, but has even increased, by affording to the brethren the abundance which he has supplied, and by comforting with blessed words the brethren who came to him, as a father his children.

Again:

You also by this instruction have mingled together the Romans and Corinthians who are the planting of Peter and Paul. For they both came to our Corinth and planted us, and taught alike; and alike going to Italy and teaching there, were martyred at the same time.

Again:

Today we have kept the holy Lord's day, on which we have read your letter, which we shall ever possess to read and to be admonished, even as the former one written to us through Clement.

The testimony to the generosity of the Roman Church is carried on by the witness of Dionysius of Alexandria in the third century; and Eusebius in the fourth declares that it was still seen in his own day in the great persecution. The witness to the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul, kata ton auton kairon, is of first-rate importance, and so is the mention of the Epistle of Clement and the public reading of it. The letter of the pope was written "as a father to his children".

Dionysius's own letters were evidently much prized, for in the last extract he says that he wrote them by request, and that they have been falsified "by the apostles of the devil". No wonder, he adds, that the Scriptures are falsified by such persons.

JOHN CHAPMAN

Dionysius Exiguus

The surname Exiguus, or "The Little", adopted probably in self-deprecation and not because he was small of stature; flourished in the earlier part of the sixth century, dying before the year 544. According to his friend and fellow-student, Cassiodorus (De divinis Lectionibus, c. xxiii), though by birth a Scythian, he was in character a true Roman and thorough Catholic, most learned in both tongues–i.e., Greek and Latin–and an accomplished Scripturist. Much of his life was spent in Rome, where he governed a monastery as abbot. His industry was very great and he did good service in translating standard works from Greek into Latin, principally the "Life of St. Pachomius", the "Instruction of St. Proclus of Constantinople" for the Armenians, the "De opificio hominis" of St. Gregory of Nyssa, the history of the discovery of the head of St. John the Baptist. The translation of St. Cyril of Alexandria's synodical letter against Nestorius, and some other works long attributed to Dionysius are now acknowledged to be earlier and are assigned to Marius Mercator.

Of great importance were the contributions of Dionysius to the science of canon law, the first beginnings of which in Western Christendom were due to him. His "Collectio Dionysiana" embraces (1) a collection of synodal decrees, of which he has left two editions:–(a) "Codex canonum Ecclesiæ Universæ". This contains canons of Oriental synods and councils only in Greek and Latin, including those of the four œcumenical councils from Nicæa (325) to Chalcedon (451).–(b) "Codex canonum ecclesiasticarum". This is in Latin only; its contents agree generally with the other, but the Council of Ephesus (431) is omitted, while the so-called "Canons of the Apostles" and those of Sardica are included, as well as 138 canons of the African Council of Carthage (419).–(c) Of another bilingual version of Greek canons, undertaken at the instance of Pope Hormisdas, only the preface has been preserved. (2) A collection of papal Constitutions (Collectio decretorum Pontificum Romanorum) from Siricius to Anastasius II (384-498).

In chronology Dionysius has left his mark conspicuously, for it was he who introduced the use of the Christian Era (see Chronology ) according to which dates are reckoned from the Incarnation, which he assigned to 25 March, in the year 754 from the foundation of Rome (a.d.). By this method of computation he intended to supersede the "Era of Diocletian" previously employed, being unwilling, as he tells us, that the name of an impious persecutor should be thus kept in memory. The Era of the Incarnation, often called the Dionysian Era, was soon much used in Italy and, to some extent, a little later in Spain; during the eighth and ninth centuries it was adopted in England. Charlemagne is said to have been the first Christian ruler to employ it officially. It was not until the tenth century that it was employed in the papal chancery (Lersch, Chronologie, Freiburg, 1899, p. 233). Dionysius also gave attention to the calculation of Easter, which so greatly occupied the early Church. To this end he advocated the adoption of the Alexandrian Cycle of nineteen years, extending that of St. Cyril for a period of ninety-five years in advance. It was in this work that he adopted the Era of the Incarnation.

Dionysius, works in P.L., LXVII, and the testimony of Cassiodorus, ibid, LXX. See also Maasen, Quellen der Lit. des can. Rechts im Abendlande (Graz, 1870); Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirch. Lit. (Freiburg im Br., 1902).

John Gerard.

Dionysius of Alexandria

(Bishop from 247-8 to 264-5.)

Called "the Great" by Eusebius, St. Basil, and others, was undoubtedly, after St. Cyprian, the most eminent bishop of the third century. Like St. Cyprian he was less a great theologian than a great administrator. Like St. Cyprian his writings usually took the form of letters. Both saints were converts from paganism; both were engaged in the controversies as to the restoration of those who had lapsed in the Decian persecution, about Novatian, and with regard to the iteration of heretical baptism; both corresponded with the popes of their day. Yet it is curious that neither mentions the name of the other. A single letter of Dionysius has been preserved in Greek canon law. For the rest we are dependent on the many citations by Eusebius, and, for one phase, to the works of his great successor St. Athanasius.

Dionysius was an old man when he died, so that his birth will fall about 190, or earlier. He is said to have been of distinguished parentage. He became a Christian when still young. At a later period, when he was warned by a priest of the danger he ran in studying the books of heretics, a vision–so he informs us–assured him that he was capable of proving all things, and that this faculty had in fact been the cause of his conversion. He studied under Origen. The latter was banished by Demetrius about 231, and Heraclas took his place at the head of the catechetical school. On the death of Demetrius very soon afterwards, Heraclas became bishop, and Dionysius took the headship of the famous school. It is thought that he retained this office even when he himself had succeeded Heraclas as bishop. In the last year of Philip, 249, although the emperor himself was reported to be a Christian, a riot at Alexandria, roused by a popular prophet and poet, had all the effect of a severe persecution. It is described by Dionysius in a letter to Fabius of Antioch. The mob first seized an old man named Metras, beat him with clubs when he would not deny his faith, pierced his eyes and face with reeds, dragged him out of the city, and stoned him. Then a woman named Quinta, who would not sacrifice, was drawn along the rough pavement by the feet, dashed against millstones, scourged, and finally stoned in the same suburb. The houses of the faithful were plundered. Not one, so far as the bishop knew, apostatized. The aged virgin, Apollonia, after her teeth had been knocked out, sprang of her own accord into the fire prepared for her rather than utter blasphemies. Serapion had all his limbs broken, and was dashed down from the upper story of his own house. It was impossible for any Christian to go into the streets, even at night, for the mob was shouting that all who would not blaspheme should be burnt. The riot was stopped by the civil war, but the new Emperor Decius instituted a legal persecution in January, 250. St. Cyprian describes how at Carthage the Christians rushed to sacrifice, or at least to obtain false certificates of having done so. Similarly Dionysius tells us that at Alexandria many conformed through fear, others on account of official position, or persuaded by friends; some pale and trembling at their act, others boldly asserting that they had never been Christians. Some endured imprisonment for a time; others abjured only at the sight of tortures; others held out until the tortures conquered their resolution. But there were noble instances of constancy. Julian and Kronion were scourged through the city on camels, and then burnt to death. A soldier, Besas, who protected them from the insults of the people, was beheaded. Macar, a Libyan, was burnt alive. Epimachus and Alexander, after long imprisonment and many tortures, were also burnt, with four women. The virgin Ammomarion also was long tortured. The aged Mercuria and Dionysia, a mother of many children, suffered by the sword. Heron, Ater, and Isidore, Egyptians, after many tortures were given to the flames. A boy of fifteen, Dioscorus, who stood firm under torture, was dismissed by the judge for very shame. Nemesion was tortured and scourged, and then burnt between two robbers. A number of soldiers, and with them an old man named Ingenuus, made indignant signs to one who was on his trial and about to apostatize. When called to order they cried out that they were Christians with such boldness that the governor and his assessors were taken aback; they suffered a glorious martyrdom. Numbers were martyred in the cities and villages. A steward named Ischyrion was pierced through the stomach by his master with a large stake because he refused to sacrifice. Many fled, wandered in the deserts and the mountains, and were cut off by hunger, thirst, cold, sickness, robbers, or wild beasts. A bishop named Chæremon escaped with his súmbios (wife?) to the Arabian mountain, and was no more heard of. Many were carried off as slaves by the Saracens and some of these were later ransomed for large sums.

Some of the lapsed had been readmitted to Christian fellowship by the martyrs. Dionysius urged upon Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, who was inclined to join Novatian, that it was right to respect this judgment delivered by blessed martyrs "now seated with Christ, and sharers in His Kingdom and assessors in His judgment". He adds the story of an old man, Serapion, who after a long and blameless life had sacrificed, and could obtain absolution from no one. On his death-bed he sent his grandson to fetch a priest. The priest was ill, but he gave a particle of the Eucharist to the child, telling him to moisten it and place it in the old man's mouth. Serapion received it with joy, and immediately expired. Sabinus, the prefect, sent a frumentarius (detective) to search for Dionysius directly the decree was published; he looked everywhere but in Dionysius's own house, where the saint had quietly remained. On the fourth day he was inspired to depart, and he left at night, with his domestics and certain brethren. But it seems that he was soon made prisoner, for soldiers escorted the whole party to Taposiris in the Mareotis. A certain Timotheus, who had not been taken with the others, informed a passing countryman, who carried the news to a wedding-feast he was attending. All instantly rose up and rushed to release the bishop. The soldiers took to flight, leaving their prisoners on their uncushioned litters. Dionysius, believing his rescuers to be robbers, held out his clothes to them, retaining only his tunic. They urged him to rise and fly. He begged them to leave him, declaring that they might as well cut off his head at once, as the soldiers would shortly do so. He let himself down on the ground on his back; but they seized him by the hands and feet and dragged him away, carrying him out of the little town, and setting him on an ass without a saddle. With two companions, Gaius and Peter, he ramained in a desert place in Libya until the persecution ceased in 251. The whole Christian world was then thrown into confusion by the news that Novatian claimed the Bishopric of Rome in opposition to Pope Cornelius. Dionysius at once took the side of the latter, and it was largely by his influence that the whole East, after much disturbance, was brought in a few months into unity and harmony. Novatian wrote to him for support. His curt reply has been preserved entire: Novatian can easily prove the truth of his protestation that he was consecrated against his will by voluntarily retiring; he ought to have suffered martyrdom rather than divide the Church of God; indeed it would have been a particularly glorious martyrdom on behalf of the whole Church (such is the importance attached by Dionysius to a schism at Rome); if he can even now persuade his party to make peace, the past will be forgotten; if not, let him save his own soul. St. Dionysius also wrote many letters on this question to Rome and to the East; some of these were treatises on penance. He took a somewhat milder view than Cyprian, for he gave greater weight to the "indulgences" granted by the martyrs, and refused forgiveness in the hour of death to none.

After the persecution the pestilence. Dionysius describes it more graphically than does St. Cyprian, and he reminds us of Thucydides and Defoe. The heathen thrust away their sick, fled from their own relatives, threw bodies half dead into the streets; yet they suffered more than the Christians, whose heroic acts of mercy are recounted by their bishop. Many priests, deacons, and persons of merit died from succouring others, and this death, writes Dionysius, was in no way inferior to martyrdom. The baptismal controversy spread from Africa throughout the East. Dionysius was far from teaching, like Cyprian, that baptism by a heretic rather befouls than cleanses; but he was impressed by the opinion of many bishops and some councils that repetition of such a baptism was necessary, and it appears that he besought Pope Stephen not to break off communion with the Churches of Asia on this account. He also wrote on the subject to Dionysius of Rome, who was not yet pope, and to a Roman named Philemon, both of whom had written to him. We know seven letters from him on the subject, two being addressed to Pope Sixtus II. In one of these he asks advice in the case of a man who had received baptism a long time before from heretics, and now declared that it had been improperly performed. Dionysius had refused to renew the sacrament after the man had so many years received the Holy Eucharist; he asks the pope's opinion. In this case it is clear that the difficulty was in the nature of the ceremonies used, not in the mere fact of their having been performed by heretics. We gather than Dionysius himeself followed the Roman custom, either by the tradition of his Church, or else out of obedience to the decree of Stephen. In 253 Origen died; he had not been at Alexandria for many years. But Dionysius had not forgotten his old master, and wrote a letter in his praise to Theotecnus of Cæsarea.

An Egyptian bishop, Nepos, taught the Chiliastic error that there would be a reign of Christ upon earth for a thousand years, a period of corporal delights; he founded this doctrine upon the Apocalypse in a book entitled "Refutation of the Allegorizers". It was only after the death of Nepos that Dionysius found himself obliged to write two books "On the Promises" to counteract this error. He treats Nepos with great respect, but rejects his doctrine, as indeed the Church has since done, though it was taught by Papias, Justin, Irenæus, Victorinus of Pettau, and others. The diocese proper to Alexandria was still very large (though Heraclas is said to have instituted new bishoprics), and the Arsinoite nome formed a part of it. Here the error was very prevalent, and St. Dionysius went in person to the villages, called together the priests and teachers, and for three days instructed them, refuting the arguments they drew from the book of Nepos. He was much edified by the docile spirit and love of truth which he found. At length Korakion, who had introduced the book and the doctrine, declared himself convinced. The chief interest of the incident is not in the picture it gives of ancient Church life and of the wisdom and gentleness of the bishop, but in the remarkable disquisition, which Dionysius appends, on the authenticity of the Apocalypse. It is a very striking piece of "higher criticism", and for clearness and moderation, keenness and insight, is hardly to be surpassed. Some of the brethren, he tells us, in their zeal against Chiliastic error, repudiated the Apocalypse altogether, and took it chapter by chapter to ridicule it, attributing the authorship of it to Cerinthus (as we know the Roman Gaius did some years earlier). Dionysius treats it with reverence, and declares it to be full of hidden mysteries, and doubtless really by a man called John. (In a passage now lost, he showed that the book must be understood allegorically.) But he found it hard to believe that the writer could be the son of Zebedee, the author of the Gospel and of the Catholic Epistle, on account of the great contrast of character, style and "what is called working out". He shows that the one writer calls himself John, whereas the other only refers to himself by some periphrasis. He adds the famous remark, that "it is said that there are two tombs in Ephesus, both of which are called that of John". He demonstrates the close likeness between the Gospel and the Epistle, and points out the wholly different vocabulary of the Apocalypse; the latter is full of solecisms and barbarisms, while the former are in good Greek. This acute criticism was unfortunate, in that it was largely the cause of the frequent rejection of the Apocalypse in the Greek-speaking Churches, even as late as the Middle Ages. Dionysius's arguments appeared unanswerable to the liberal critics of the nineteenth century. Lately the swing of the pendulum has brought many, guided by Bousset, Harnack, and others, to be impressed rather by the undeniable points of contact between the Gospel and the Apocalypse, than by the differences of style (which can be explained by a different scribe and interpreter, since the author of both books was certainly a Jew), so that even Loisy admits that the opinion of the numerous and learned conservative scholars "no longer appears impossible". But it should be noted that the modern critics have added nothing to the judicious remarks of the third-century patriarch.

The Emperor Valerian, whose accession was in 253, did not persecute until 257. In that year St. Cyprian was banished to Curubis, and St. Dionysius to Kephro in the Mareotis, after being tried together with one priest and two deacons before Æmilianus, the prefect of Egypt. He himself relates the firm answers he made to the prefect, writing to defend himself against a certain Germanus, who had accused him of a disgraceful flight. Cyprian suffered in 258, but Dionysius was spared, and returned to Alexandria directly toleration was decreed by Gallienus in 260. But not to peace, for in 261-2 the city was in a state of tumult little less dangerous than a persecution. The great thoroughfare which traversed the town was impassable. The bishop had to communicate with his flock by letter, as though they were in different countries. It was easier, he writes, to pass from East to West, than from Alexandria to Alexandria. Famine and pestilence raged anew. The inhabitants of what was still the second city of the world had decreased so that the males between fourteen and eighty were now scarcely so numerous as those between forty and seventy had been not many years before. A controversy arose in the latter years of Dionysius of which the half-Arian Eusebius has been careful to make no mention. All we know is from St. Athanasius. Some bishops of the Pentapolis of Upper Libya fell into Sabellianism and denied the distinctness of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. Dionysius wrote some four letters to condemn their error, and sent copies to Pope Sixtus II (257-8). But he himself fell, so far as words go, into the opposite error, for he said the Son is a poíema (something made) and distinct in substance, xénos kat’ oùsian, from the Father, even as is the husbandman from the vine, or a shipbuilder from a ship. These words were seized upon by the Arians of the fourth century as plain Arianism. But Athanasius defended Dionysius by telaling the sequel of the history. Certain brethren of Alexandria, being offended at the words of their bishop, betook themselves to Rome to Pope St. Dionysius (259- 268), who wrote a letter, in which he declared that to teach that the Son was made or was a creature was an impiety equal, though contrary, to that of Sabellius. He also wrote to his namesake of Alexandria informing him of the accusation brought against him. The latter immediately composed books entitled "Refutation" and "Apology"; in these he explicitly declared that there never was a time when God was not Father, that Christ always was, being Word and Wisdom and Power, and coeternal, even as brightness is not posterior to the light from which it proceeds. He teaches the "Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity"; he clearly implies the equality and eternal procession of the Holy Ghost. In these last points he is more explicit than St. Athanasius himself is elsewhere, while in the use of the word consubstantial, ‘omooúsios, he anticipates Nicæa, for he bitterly complains of the calumny that he had rejected the expression. But however he himself and his advocate Athanasius may attempt to explain away his earlier expressions, it is clear that he had been incorrect in thought as well as in words, and that he did not at first grasp the true doctrine with the necessary distinctness. The letter of the pope was evidently explicit and must have been the cause of the Alexandrian's clearer vision. The pope, as Athanasius points out, gave a formal condemnation of Arianism long before that heresy emerged. When we consider the vagueness and incorrectness in the fourth century of even the supporters of orthodoxy in the East, the decision of the Apostolic See will seem a marvellous testimony to the doctrine of the Fathers as to the unfailing faith of Rome.

We find Dionysius issuing yearly, like the later bishops of Alexandria, festal letters announcing the date of Easter and dealing with various matters. When the heresy of Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, began to trouble the East, Dionysius wrote to the Church of Antioch on the subject, as he was obliged to decline the invitation to attend a synod there, on the score of his age and infirmities. He died soon afterwards. St. Dionysius is in the Roman Martyrology on 17 Nov., but he is also intended, with the companions of his flight in the Decian persecution, by the mistaken notice on 3 Oct.: Dionysius, Faustus, Gaius, Peter, and Paul, Martyrs(!). The same error is found in Greek menologies.

The principal remains of Dionysius are the citations in Eusebius, H. E., VI-VII, a few fragments of the books On Natrure in Idem, Præp. Evang., xiv, and;the quotations in Athanasius, De Sententiâ Dionysii, etc. A collection of these and other fragments is in Gallandi, Bibl. Vett. Patrum, III XIV, reprinted in P.G., X. The fullest ed. is by Simon de Magistris, S. Dion. Al. Opp. omnia (Rome, 1796); also Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ III-IV. Syriac and Armenian fragments in Pitra, Analecta Sacra, IV. A complete list of all the fragments is in Harnack, Gesch. der altchr. Litt., I, 409-27, but his account of the passages from the Catena on Luke (probably from a letter to Origen, On Martyrdom) needs completing from Sickenberger, Die Lucaskatene des Niketas von Heracleia (Leipzig, 1902). For the life of Dionysius see Tillemont, IV; Acta SS., 3 Oct.; Dittrich, Dionysius der Grosse, eine Monographie (Freiburg im Br., 1867); Morize, Denys d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1881). Dom Morin tried unsuccessfully to identify the Canons of Hippolytus with Dionysius" ’Epistóle diokonikè dià ‘Ippolútou (Euseb., H. E., VI, 45-6) in Revue Bénédictine (1900), XVII, 241. Also Mercati, Note di letteratura bibl. et crist. ant.: Due supposte lettere di Dionigi Aless. (Rome, 1901). For chronology see Hanack, Chronol., I, 202, II, 57. A very good account, with full bibliography, is in Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirchl. Litt., II. On the Chiliastic question see Gry, Le Millénarisme (Paris, 1904), 101.

John Chapman

Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite

By "Dionysius the Areopagite" is usually understood the judge of the Areopagus who, as related in Acts, xvii, 34, was converted to Christianity by the preaching of St. Paul, and according to Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, iv) was Bishop of Athens. In the course of time, however, two errors of far-reaching import arose in connection with this name. In the first place, a series of famous writings of a rather peculiar nature was ascribed to the Areopagite and, secondly, he was popularly identified with the holy martyr of Gaul, Dionysius, the first Bishop of Paris. It is not our purpose to take up directly the latter point; we shall concern ourselves here (1) with the person of the Peudo-Areopagite; (2) with the classification, contents, and characteristics of his writing; (3) with their history and transmission; under this head the question as to the genuineness of, origin, first acceptance, and gradual spread of these writings will be answered.

Deep obscurity still hovers about the person of the Pseudo-Areopagite. External evidence as to the time and place of his birth, his education, and latter occupation is entirely wanting. Our only source of information regarding this problematic personage is the writings themselves. The clues furnished by the first appearance and by the character of the writings enable us to conclude that the author belongs at the very earliest to the latter half of the fifth century, and that, in all probability, he was a native of Syria. His thoughts, phrases, and expressions show a great familiarity with the works of the neo-Platonists, especially with Plotinus and Proclus. He is also thoroughly versed in the sacred books of the Old and New Testament, and in the works of the Fathers as far as Cyril of Alexandria. (Passages from the Areopagitic writings are indicated by title and chapter. in this article D.D.N. stands for "De divinus nominibus"; C.H. for "Caelestis hierarchia"; E.H. for "Ecclesiastica hierarchia"; Th.M. for "Theologia mystica", which are all found in Migne, P.G., vol. III) In a letter to Polycarp (Ep. vii; P.G., III, 1080 A) and in "Cael. hier." (ix, 3; P.G. III, 260 D) he intimates that he was formerly a pagan, and this seems quite probable, considering the peculiar character of his literary work. But one should be more cautious in regard to certain other personal references, for instance, that he was chosen teacher of the "newly-baptized" (D.D.N., iii, 2; P.G., III, 681 B); that his spiritual father and guide was a wise and saintly man, Hierotheus by name; that he was advised by the latter and ordered by his own superiors to compose these works (ibid., 681 sq.). And it is plainly for the purpose of deceiving that he tells of having observed the solar eclipse at Christ's Crucifixion (Ep., vii, 2; P.G., III, 1081 A) and of having, with Hierotheus, the Apostles (Peter and James), and other hierarchs, looked upon "the Life-Begetting, God-Receiving body, i.e., of the Blessed Virgin" (D.D.N., iii, 2; P.G., III, 681 C). The former of these accounts is based on Matt., xxvii, 45, and Mark, xv,33; the latter refers to the apocryphal descriptions of the "Dormitio Mariae". For the same purpose, i.e., to create the impression that the author belonged to the times of the Apostles and that he was identical with the Areopagite mentioned in the Acts, different persons, such as John the Evangelist, Paul, Timothy, Titus, Justus, and Carpus, with whom he is supposed to be on intimate terms, figure in his writings.

The doctrinal attitude of the Pseudo-Areopagite is not clearly defined. A certain vagueness, which was perhaps intended, is characteristic of his Christology, especially in the question concerning the two natures in Christ. We may well surmise that he was not a stranger to the latter, and rather modified, form of Monophysitism and that he belonged to that conciliatory group which sought, on the basis of the Henoticon issued in 482 by Emperor Zeno (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., III, iv), to reconcile the extremes of orthodoxy and heresy. This reserved, indefinite attitude of the author explains the remarkable fact that opposite factions claimed him as an adherent. As to his social rank, a careful comparison of certain details scattered through his works shows that he belonged to the class of scholars who were known at the time as scholastikoi.

The writings themselves form a collection of four treatises and ten letters. The first treatise, which is also the most important in scope and content, presents in thirteen chapters an explanation of the Divine names. Setting out from the principle that the names of God are to be learned from Scripture only, and that they afford us but an imperfect knowledge of God, Dionysius discusses, among other topics, God's goodness, being, life, wisdom, power, and justice. The one underlying thought of the work, recurring again and again under different forms and phrases, is: God, the One Being (to hen), transcending all quality and predication, all affirmation and negation, and all intellectual conception, by the very force of His love and goodness gives to beings outside Himself their countless gradations, unites them in the closest bonds (proodos), keeps each by His care and direction in its appointed sphere, and draws them again in an ascending order to Himself (epistrophe). While he illustrates the inner life of the Trinity by metaphors of blossom and light applied to the Second and Third Persons (D.D.N., ii, 7 in P.G., III, 645 B), Dionysius represents the procession of all created things from God by the exuberance of being in the Godhead (to hyperpleres), its outpouring and overflowing (D.D.N., ix, 9, in P.G., III, 909 C; cf. ii, 10 in P.G., III, 648 C; xiii, 1 in P.G., III, 977 B), and as a flshing forth from the sun of the Deity (D.D.N., iv, 6 in P.G., III,701 A; iv, 1 in P.G., III, 693 B). Exactly according to their physical nature created things absorb more or less of the radiated light, which, however, grows weaker the farther it descends (D.D.N., xi, 2 in P.G., III, 952 A; i, 2 in P.G., III., 588 C). As the mighty root sends forth a multitude of plants which it sustains and controls, so created things owe their origin and conservation to the All-Ruling Deity (D.D.N., x, 1 in P.G., III, 936 D). Patterned upon the original of Divine love, righteousness, and peace, is the harmony that pervades the universe (D.D.N., chapters iv, viii, xi). All things tend to God, and in Him are merged and completed, just as the circle returns into itself (D.D.N., iv, 14 in P.G., III, 712 D), as the radii are joined in the centre, or as the numbers are contained in unity (D.D.N., v, 6 in P.G., III., 820 sq.). These and many similar expressions have given rise to frequent charges of Pantheism against the author. He does not, however, a assert a necessary emanation of things from God, but admits a free creative act on the part of God (D.D.N., iv, 10, in P.G., III, 708 B; cf. C.H., iv, 1 in P.G., III, 177 C); still the echo of neo-Platonism is unmistakable.

The same thoughts, or their applications to certain orders of being, recur in his other writings. The second treatise develops in fifteen chapters the doctrine of the celestial hierarchy, comprising nine angelic choirs which are divided into closer groupings of three choirs each (triads). The names of the nine choirs are taken from the canonical books and are arranged in the following order. First triad: seraphim, cherubim, thrones; second triad: virtues, dominations, powers; third triad: principalities, archangels, angels (C.H., vi, 2 in P.G., III, 200 D). The grouping of the second triad exhibits some variations. From the etymology of each choir-name the author labours to evolve a wealth of description, and, as a result, lapses frequently into tautology. Quite characteristic is the dominant idea that the different choirs of angels are less intense in their love and knowledge of God the farther they are removed from him, just as a ray of light or of heat grows weaker the farther it travels from its source. To this must be added another fundamental idea peculiar to the Pseudo-Areopagite, namely, that the highest choirs transmit the light received from the Divine Source only to the intermediate choirs, and these in turn transmit it to the lowest. The third treatise is but a continuation of the other two, inasmuch as it is based upon the same leading ideas. It deals with the nature and grades of the "ecclesiastical hierarchy" in seven chapters, each of which is subdivided into three parts (prologos, mysterion, theoria). After an introduction which discusses God's purpose in establishing the hierarchy of the Church, and which pictures Christ as its Head, holy and supreme, Dionysius treats of three sacraments (baptism, the Eucharist, extreme unction), of the three grades of the Teaching Church (bishops, priests, deacons), of three grades of the "Learning Church" (monks, people, and the class composed of catechumens, energumens, and penitents), and, lastly, of the burial of the dead [C.H., iii, (3), 6 in P.G., III, 432 sq.; vi, in P.G., III, 529 sq.] The main purpose of the author is to disclose and turn to the uses of contemplation the deeper mystical meaning which underlies the sacred rites, ceremonies, institutions, and symbols. The fourth treatise in entitled "Mystical Theology", and presents in five chapters guiding principles concerning the mystical union with God, which is entirely beyond the compass of sensuous or intellectual perception (epopteia). The ten letters, four addressed to a monk, Caius, and one each to a deacon, Dortheus, to a priest, Sopater, to the bishop of Polycarp, to a monk, Demophilus, to the bishop Titus, and to the Apostle John, contain, in part, additional or supplementary remarks on the above-mentioned principal works, and in part, practical hints for dealing with sinners and unbelievers. Since in all of these writings the same salient thoughts on philosophy and theology recur with the same striking peculiarities of expression and with manifold references, in both form and matter, from one work to another, the assumption is justified that they are all to be ascribed to one and the same author. In fact, at its first appearance in the literary world the entire corpus of these writings was combined as it is now. An eleventh letter to Apollophanes, given in Migne, P.G., III, 1119, is a medieval forgery based on the seventh letter. Apocryphal, also, are a letter to Timothy and a second letter to Titus.

Dionysius would lead us to infer that he is the author of still other learned treatises, namely: "Theological Outlines" (D.D.N., ii, 3, in P.G., III 640 B); "Sacred Hymns" (C.H., vii, 4 in P.G., III, 212 B); "Symbolic Theology" C.H., xv, 6 in P.G., III,336 A); and treatises on "The Righteous Judgment of God" (D.D.N., iv, 35 in P.G., III, 736 B); on "The Soul" (D.D.N., iv, 2 in P.G., III, 696 C); and on "The objects of Intellect and Sense" (E. H., i, 2 in P.G., III, 373 B). No reliable trace, however, of any of these writings has ever been discovered, and in his references to them Dionysius is as uncontrollable as in his citations from Hierotheus. It may be asked if these are not fictions pure and simple, designed to strengthen the belief in the genuineness of the actually published works. This suspicion seems to be more warranted because of other discrepancies, e.g., when Dionysius, the priest, in his letter to Timothy, extols the latter as a theoeides, entheos, theios ierarches, and nevertheless seeks to instruct him in those sublime secret doctrines that are for bishops only (E.H., i, 5 in P.G., III, 377 A), doctrines, moreover, which, since the cessation of the Disciplina Arcani, had already been made public. Again, Dionysius points out (D.D.N., iii, 2 in P.G., III, 681 B; cf. E.H., iv, 2 in P.G., III, 476 B) that his writings are intended to serve as catechetical instruction for the newly-baptized. This is evidently another contradiction of his above-mentioned statement.

We may now turn to the history of the Pseudo-Dionysian writings. This embraces a period of almost fifteen hundred years, and three distinct turning points in its course have divided it into as many distinct periods: first, the period of the gradual rise and settlement of the writings in Christian literature, dating from the latter part of the fifth century to the Lateran Council, 649; second, the period of their highest and universally acknowledged authority, both in the Western and Eastern Church, lasting till the beginning of the fifteenth century; third, the period of sharp conflict waged about their authenticity, begun by Laurentius Valla, and closing only within recent years.

The Areopagitica were formerly were supposed to have made their first appearance, or rather to have been first noticed by Christian writers, in a few pseudo-epigraphical works which have now been proved to be the products of a much later period; as, for instance, in the following: Pseudo-Origenes, "Homilia in diversos secunda"; Pseudo-Athanasius, "Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem", Q. viii; Pseudo-Hippolytus, against the heretic Beron; Pseudo-Chrysostom, "sermo de pseudo-prophetis." Until more recently more credit was given to other lines of evidence on which Franz Hipler endeavoured to support his entirely new thesis, to the effect that the author of the writings lived about the year 375 in Egypt, as Abbot of Rhinokorura. Hipler's attempts, however, at removing the textual difficulties, ekleipsis, adelphotheos, soma, proved to be unsuccessful. In fact, those very passages in which Hipler thought that the Fathers had made use of the Areopagite (e.g., in Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome) do not tell in favor of this hypothesis; on the contrary, they are much better explained if the converse be assumed, namely, that Pseudo-Dionysius drew from them. Hipler himself, convinced by the results of recent research, has abandoned his opinion. Other events also, both historical and literary, evidently exerted a marked influence on the Areopagite: (1) the Council of Chalcedon (451), the Christological terminology of which was studiously followed by the Dionysius; (2) the writings of the neo-Platonist Proclus (411-485), from whom Dionysius borrowed to a surprising extent; (3) the introduction (c. 476) of the Credo into the liturgy of the Mass, which is alluded to in the "Ecclesiastical Hierarchy" [iii, 2, in P.G., III, 425 C, and iii, (3), 7 in P.G., III, 436 C; cf. the explanation of Maximus in P.G., IV, 144 B]; (4) the Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno (482), a formula of union designed for the bishops, clerics, monks, and faithful of the Orient, as a compromise between Monophystism and orthodoxy. Both in spirit and tendency the Areopagitica correspond fully to the sense of the Henoticon; and one might easily infer that they were made to further the purpose of the Henoticon.

The result of the foregoing data is that the first appearance of the pseuodo-epigraphical writings cannot be placed earlier than the latter half, in fact at the close, of the fifth century.

Having ascertained a terminus post quem, it is possible by means of evidence taken from Dionysius himself to fix a terminus ante quem, thus narrowing to about thirty years the period within which these writings must have originated. The earliest reliable citations of the writings of Dionysius are from the end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth century. The first is by Severus, the head of a party of moderate Monophysites named after him, and Patriarch of Antioch (512-518). In a letter addressed to a certain abbot, John (Mai, Script. vett. nov. coll., VII, i, 71), he quotes in proof of his doctrine of the mia synthetos physis in Christ the Dionysian Ep. iv (P.G., III, 1072 C), where a kaine theandrike energeia is mentioned. Again, in the treatise "Adversus anathem. Juliani Halicarn" (Cod. Syr. Vat. 140, fol. 100 b), Severus cites a passage from D.D.N., ii, 9, P.G., III, 648A (abba kai to pases -- thesmo dieplatteto), and returns once more to Ep. iv. In the Syrian "History of the Church" of Zacharias (e. Ahrens-Kruger, 134-5) it is related that Severus, a man well-versed in the writings of Dionysius (Areop.), was present at the Synod in Tyre (513). Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappodocia, wrote (about 520) a commentary on the Apocalypse wherein he quotes the Areopagite four times and makes use of at least three of his works (Migne, P.G., CVI, 257, 305, 356, 780; cf. Diekamp in "Hist. Jahrb", XVIII, 1897, pp. 1-36). Like Severus, Zacharias Rhetor and, in all probability, also Andreas of Cappodocia,. inclined to Monophysitism (Diekamp, a "Book of Hierotheus"---Hierotheus had come to be regarded as the teacher of Dionysius---existed in the Syrian literature of that time and exerted considerable influence in the spread of Dionysian doctrines. Frothingham (Stephen Bar Sudaili, p. 63 sq.) considers the pantheist Stephen Bar Sudaili as its author. Jobius Monachus, a contemporary of the writers just mentioned, published against Severus a polemical treatise which has since been lost, but claims the Areopagite as authority for the orthodox teaching (P.G., CIII, 765). So also Ephraem, Archbishop of Antioch (527-545), interprets in a right sense the well-known passage from D.D.N., i, 4, P.G., III., 529 A: ho haplous Iesous synetethe, by distinguishing between synthetos hypostasis and synthetos ousia. Between the years 532-548, if not earlier, John of Scythopolis in Palestine wrote an interpretation of Dionysius (Pitra, "Analect. sacr.", IV, Proleg., p. xxiii; cf. Loof's, "Leontius of Byzantium" (p. 270 sq.) from an anti-Severan standpoint. In Leontius of Byzantium (485-543) we have another important witness. This eminent champion of Catholic doctrine in at least four passages of his works builds on the megas Dionysios (P.G., LXXXVI, 1213 A; 1288 C; 1304 D; Canisius-Basnage, "Thesaur. monum. eccles.", Antwerp, 1725, I, 571). Sergius of Resaina in Mesopotamia, archiater and presbyter (d. 536), at an early date translated the works of Dionysius into Syriac. He admitted their genuineness, and for their defence also translated into Syriac the already current "Apologies" (Brit. Mus. cod. add. 1251 and 22370; cf. Zacharias Rhetor in Ahrens-Kruger, p. 208). He himself was a Monophysite.

By far the most important document in the case is the report given by Bishop Innocent of Maronia of the religious debate held at Constantinople in 533 between seven orthodox and seven Severian spaekers (Hardouin, II, 1159 sq.). The former had as leader and spokesman, Hypatius, Bishop of Ephesus, who was thoroughly versed in the literature of the subject. On the second day the "Orientals" (Severians) alleged against the Council of Chalcedon, that it had by a novel and erroneous expression decreed two natures in Christ. Besides Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Felix and Julius of Rome, they also quoted Dionysius the Areopagite as an exponent of the doctrine of one nature. Hypatius rejected as spurious all these citations, and showed that Cyril never made the slightest use of them, though on various occasions they would have served his purpose admirably. He suspects that these falsifiers are Apollinarists. When the Severians rejoined that they could point out in the polemical writings of Cyril against Diodorus and Theodore the use made of such evidence, Hypatius persisted in the stand he had taken: "sed nunc videtur quoniam et in illis libris [Cyrilli] haeretici falsantes addiderunt ea". The references to the archives of Alexandria had just as little weight with him, since Alexandria, with its libraries, had long been in the hands of the heretics. How could an interested party of the opposition be introduced as a witness? Hypatius refers again especially to Dionysius and successfully puts down the opposition: "Illa enim testimonia quae vos Dionysii Areopagitae dicitis, unde potestis ostendere vera esse, sicut suspicamini? Si enim eius erant, non potuissent latere beatum Cyrillum. Quis autem de beato Cyrillo dico, quando et beatus Athanasius, si pro certo scisset eius fuisse, ante omnia in Nicaeno concilio de consubstantiali Trinitate eadem testimonia protulisset adversus Arii diversae substantiae blasphemias". Indeed, as to the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son the Areopagite has statements that leave no room for misinterpretation; and had these come from a disciple of the Apostles, they would have been all the more valuable. Hereupon the Severians dropped this objection and turned to another.

The fact must, indeed, appear remarkable that these very writings, though rejected outright by such an authority as Hypatius, were within little more than a century looked upon as genuine by Catholics, so that they could be used against the heretics during the Lateran Council in 649 (Hardouin, III, 699 sqq.). How had this reversion been brought about? As the following grouping will show, it was chiefly heterodox writers, Monophysites, Nestorians, and Monothelites, who during several decades appealed to the Areopagite. But among Catholics also there were not a few who assumed the genuineness, and as some of these were persons of consequence, the way was gradually paved for the authorization of his writings in the above-mentioned council. To the group of Monophysites belonged: Themistius, deacon in Alexandria about 537 (Hardoiun, III, 784, 893 sq., 1240 sq.); Colluthus of Alexandria (Hardouin, III, 786, 895, 898); John Piloponus, an Alexandrian grammarian, about 546-549 (W. Reichardt, "Philoponus, de opificio mundi"); Petrus Callinicus, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, in the latter half of the sixth century, cited Dionysius in his polemic against the Patriarch Damianus of Alexandria (II, xli, and xlvii; cf. Frothingham, op. cit., after Cod. Syr. Vat., 108, f. 282 sqq.). As examples of the Nestorian group may be mentioned Joseph Huzaja, a Syrian monk, teacher about 580 at the school of Nisibis (Assemani, Bibl. orient., vol. III, pt. I, p.103); aloso Ischojeb, catholicos, from 580 or 581 to 594 or 595 (Braun, "Buch der Synhados", p. 229 sq.); and John of Apamea, a monk in one of the cloisters situated on the Orontes, belonging most probably to the sixth century (Cod. Syr. Vat., 93). The heads of the Monothelites, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople (610-638), Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria (630-643), Pyrrhus, the successor of Sergius in Constantinople(639-641), took as the starting point in their heresy the fourth letter of Dionysius to Caius, wherein they altered the oft-quoted formula, theandrike energeia into mia theandrike energeia.

To glance briefly at the Catholic group we find in the "Historia Euthymiaca", written about the middle of the sixth century, a passage taken, according to a citation of John Damascene (P.G., XCVI, 748), from D.D.N., iii, 2, P.G., III, 682 D: paresan de -- epakousas. Another witness, who at the same time leads over to the Latin laiterature, is Liberatus of Carthage (Breviarium causae Nestor. et Euthych., ch. v). Johannes Malalas, of Antioch, who died about 565, narrates, in his "Universal Chronicle", the conversion of the judge of the Areopagus through St. Paul (Acts, xvii, 34), and praises our author as a powerful philosopher and antagonist of the Greeks (P.G., XCVII, 384; cf. Krumbacher, Gesch. d. byz. Lit.", 3rd ed., p. 112 sq.). Another champion was Theodore, presbyter. Though it is difficult to locate him chronologically, he was, according to Le Nourry (P.G., III, 16), an "auctor antiquissimus" who flourished, at all events, before the Lateran Council in 649 and, as we learn from Photius (P.G., CIII, 44 sq.), undertook to defend the genuineness of the Areopagitic writings. The repute, moreover, of these writings was enhanced in a marked degree by the following eminent churchmen: Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria (580-607), knew and quoted, among others, the D.D.N., xiii, 2, verbatim (P.G., CIII, 1061; cf. Der Katholic, 1897, II, p. 95). From Eulogius we naturally pass to Pope Gregory the Great, with whom he enjoyed a close and honourable friendship. Gregory the Great (590-604), in his thirty-fourth homily on Like, xv, 1-10 (P.L.L. XXVI, 1254), distinctly refers to the Areopagite's teaching regarding the Angels: "Fertur vero Dionysius Areopagitica, antiquus videlicet et venerabilis Pater, dicere" etc. (c.f. C.H., vii, ix, xiii). As Gregory admits that he is not versed in Greek (Ewald, Reg., I,28; III, 63; X, 10, 21) he uses fertur not to express his doubt of the genuineness, but to imply that he had to rely on the testimony of others, since at the time no Latin version existed. It is, indeed, most probable that Eulogius directed his attention to the work.

About the year 620, Antiochus Monachus, a member of the Sabas monastery near Jerusalem, compiled a collection of moral "sentences" designed for the members of his order (P.G., LXXXIX, 1415 sqq.0. In the "Homilia (capitulum) LII" we discover a number of similar expressions and Biblical examples which are borrowed from the eighth letter of Dionysius "ad Demophilum" (P.G., III, 1085 sq.). In other passages frequent reference is made to the D.D.N. In the following years, two Patriarchs of Jerusalem, both from monasteries, defend Dionysius as a time-honoured witness of the true doctrines. The first is the Patriarch Modestus (631-634), formerly abbot of the Theodosius monastery in the desert of Judah. In a panegyric on the Assumptio Mariae (P.G., LXXXVI, 3277 sq.) he quotes sentences from the D.D.N., i, 4; ii,10; from the "Theologia Mystica", i, 1; and from Ep. ii The second, a still brighter luminary in the Church, is the Patriarch Sophronius (634-638), formerly a monk of the Theodosius monastery near Jerusalem. Immediately after his installation he published an epistula synodica, "perhaps the most important document in the Monothelitic dispute". It gives, among other dogmas, a lengthy exposition of the doctrine of two energies in Christ (Hefele, Conciliengesch., 2nd ed., III, 140 sqq.). Citing from "Eph. iv ad Caium" (theandrike energeia), he refers to our author as a man through whom God speaks and who was won over by the Divine Paul in a Divine manner (P.G., LXXXVII, 3177). Maximus Confessor evidently rests upon Sophronius, whose friendship he had gained while abbot of the monastery of Chrysopolis in Alexandria (633). In accordance with Sophronius he explains the Dionysian term theandrike energeia in an orthodox sense, and praises it as indicating both essences and natures in their distinct properties and yet in closest union (P.G., XCI, 345). Following the example of Sophronius, Maximus also distinguishes in Christ three kinds of actions (theoprepeis, anthropoprepeis and miktai) (P.G., IV, 536). Thus the Monothelites lost their strongest weapon, and the Lateran Council found the saving word (Hefele, op. cit., 2nd ed., III, 129). In other regards also Maximus plauys an important part in the authorization of the Areopagitica. A lover of theologico-mystical speculation, he showed an uncommon reverence for these writings, and by his glosses (P.G., IV), in which he explained dubious passages of Dionysius in an orthodox sense, he contributed greatly towards the recognition of Dionysius in the Middle Ages. Another equally indefatigable of Dyophysitism was Anastasias, a monk from the monastery of Sinai, who in 640 began his chequered career as a wondering preacher. Not only in his "Guide" (hodegos), but also in the "Quaestiones" and in the seventh book of the "Mediations on the Hexaemeron", he unhesitatingly makes use of different passages from Dionysius (P.G. LXXXIX). By this time a point had been reached at which the official seal, so to speak, could be put on the Dionysian writings. The Lateran Council of 649 solemnly rejected the Monothelite heresy (Hardouin, III, 699 sq.). Pope Martin I quotes from D.D.N., ii, 9; iv, 20 and 23; and the "Ep. ad Caium"; speaks of the author as "beatae memoriae Dionysius", "Dionysius egregius, sanctus, beatus, and vigorously objects to the perversion of the text: una instead of nova Dei et viri operatio. The influence which Maximus exerted by his personal appearance at the council and by his above-mentioned explanation of theandrike energeia is easily recognized ("Dionysius duplicem [operationem] duplicis naturae compositivo sermone absus est"---Hardouin, III, 787). Two of the testimonies of the Fathers which were read in the fifth session are taken from Dionysius. Little wonder, then, that thenceforth no doubt was expressed concerning the genuineness of the Areopagitica. Pope Agatho, in a dogmatic epistle directed to the Emperor Constantine (680) cites among other passages from the Fathers also the D.D.N., ii, 6. The Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680) followed in the footsteps of the Lateran Synod, again defended "Eph. iv ad. Caium" against the falsification of Pyrrhus, and rejected the meaning which the Monothelite Patriarch Macarius assigned to the passage (Hardouin, III, 1099, 1346, 1066). In the second Council of Nicaea (787) we find the "Celestial Hierarchy" of the "deifer Dionysius" cited against the Iconoclasts (Hardouin,IV, 362). This finishes the first and darkest period in the history of the Areopagitica; and it may be summarized as follows. The Dionysian writings appeared in public for the first time in the Monophysite controversies. The Severians made use of them first and were followed by the orthodox. After the religious debate at Constantinople in 533 witnesses for the genuineness of the Areopagitica began to increase among the different heretics. Despite the opposition of Hypatias, Dionysius did not altogether lose his authority even among Catholics, which was due chiefly to Leontius and Ephraem of Antioch. The number of orthodox Christians who defended him grew steadily, comprising high ecclesiastical dignitaries who had come from monasteries. Finally, under the influence of Maximus, the Lateran Council (649) cited him as a competent witness against Monothelism.

As to the second period, universal recognition of the Areopagitic writings in the Middle Ages, we need not mention the Greek Church, which is especially proud of him; but neither in the West was a voice raised in challenge down to the first half of the fifteenth century; on the contrary, his works were regarded as exceedingly valuable and even as sacred. It was believed that St. Paul, who had communicated his revelations to his disciple in Athens, spoke through these writings ((Histor.-polit. Blatter, CXXV, 1900, p. 541). As there is no doubt concerning the fact itself, a glance at the main divisions of the tradition may suffice. Rome received the original text of the Areopagitica undoubtedly through Greek monks. The oppressions on the part of Islam during the sixth and seventh centuries compelled many Greek and Oriental monks to abandon their homes and settle in italy. In Rome itself, a monastery for Greek monks was built under Stephen II and Paul I. It was also Paul I (757-767) who in 757 sent the writings of Dionysius together with other books, to Pepin in France. Adrian I (772-795) also mentioned Dionysius as a testis gravissimus in a letter accompanying the Latin translation of the Acts of the Nicaean Council (787) which he sent to Charlemagne. During the first half of the ninth century the facts concerning Dionysius are mainly grouped around the Abbot Hilduin of Saint-Denys at Paris. Through the latter the false idea that the Gallic martyr Dionysius of the third century, whose relics were preserved in the monastery of Saint-Denys, was identical with the Areopagite rose to an undoubted certainty, while the works ascribed to Dionysius gained in repute. Through a legation from Constantinople, Michael II had sent several gifts to the Frankish Emperor Louis the Pious (827), and among them were the writings of the Areopagite, which gave particular joy and honour to Hilduin, the influential arch-chaplain of Louis. Hilduin took care to have them translated into Latin and he himself wrote a life of the saint (P.L., CVI, 13 sq.). About the year 858 Scotis Eriugena, who was versed in Greek, made a new Latin translation of the Areopagite, which became the main source from which the Middle Ages obtained a knowledge of Dionysius and his doctrines. The work was undertaken at the instance of Charles the Bald, at whose court Scotus enjoyed great influence (P.L., CXXII, 1026 sq.; cf. Traube, "Poet. lat. aev. Carol.", II, 520, 859 sq.). Compared with Hilduin's, this second translation marks a decided step in advance. Scotus, with his keen dialectical skill and his soaring speculative mind, found in the Areopagite a kindred spirit. Hence, despite many errors of translation due to the obscurity of the Greek original, he was able to grasp the connections of thought and to penetrate the problems. As he accompanied his translations with explanatory notes and as, in his philosophical and theological writings, particularly in the work "De divisione naturae", (P.L., CXXII), he recurs again and again to Dionysius, it is readily seen how much he did towards securing recognition for the Areopagite.

The works of Dionysius, thus introduced into Western literature, were readily accepted by the medieval Scholastics. The great masters of Saint-Victor at Paris, foremost among them the much admired Hugh, based their teaching on the doctrine of Dionysius. Peter Lombard and the great Dominican and Franciscan scholars, Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, adopted his theses and arguments. Master poets, e.g. Dante, and historians, e.g. Otto of Freising, built on his foundations. Scholars as renowned as Robert Grosseteste of Lincoln and Vincent of Beauvais drew upon him freely. Popular religious books, such as the "Legenda aurea" of Giacommo da Varagine and the "Life of Mary" by Brother Philip, gave him a cordial welcome. The great mystics, Eckhadt, Tauler, Suso, and others, entered the mysterious obscurity of Dionysius with holy reverence. In rapid succession there appeared a number of translations: Latin translations by Joannes Sarrazenus (1170), Robert Grosseteste (about 1220), Thomas Vercellensis (1400), Ambrosius Camaldulensis (1436), Marsilius Ficinus (1492); in the sixteenth century those of Faber Stapulensis, Perionius, etc. Among the commentaries that of Hugh of Saint-Victor is notable for its warmth, that of Albertus Magnus for its extent, that of St. Thomas for its accuracy, that of Denys the Carthusian for its pious spirit and its masterly inclusion of all previous commentaries.

It was reserved for the period of the Renaissance to break with the time-honoured tradition. True, some of the older Humanists, as Pico della Mirandola, Marsilius Ficinus, and the Englishmen John Colet, were still convinced of the genuineness of the writings; but the keen and daring critic, Laurentius Valla (1407-1457) in his glosses to the New Testament, expressed his doubts quite openly and thereby gave the impulse, at first for the scholarly Erasmus (1504), and later on for the entire scientific world, to take sides either with or against Dionysius. The consequence was the formation of two camps; among the adversaries were not only Protestants (Luther, Scultetus, Dallaeus, etc.) but also prominent Catholic theologians (Beatus Rhenanus, Cajetan, Morinus, Sirmond, Petavius, Lequien, Le Nourry); among the defenders of Dionysius were Baronius, Bellarmine, Lansselius, Corderius, Halloix, Delario, de Rubeis, Lessius, Alexander Netalis, and others. The literary controversy assumed such dimensions and was carried on so vehemently that it can only be compared to the dispute concerning the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals and the pseudo-Constantinian donation. In the nineteenth century the general opinion inclined more and more towards the opposition; the Germans especially, Mohler, Fessler, Dollinger, Hergenrother, Alzog, Funk, and others made no reserve of their decision for the negative. At this juncture the scholarly professor Franz Hipler came forward and attempted to save the honor of Dionysius. He finds in Dionysius not a flasifier, but a prominent theologian of the fourth century who, through no fault of his own, but owing to the misinterpretation of some passages, was confounded with the Areopagite. Many Catholics, and many Protestants as well, voiced their approval. Finally, in 1895 there appeared almost simultaneously two independent researches, by Hugo Koch and by Joseph Stiglmayr, both of whom started from the same point and arrived at the same goal. The conclusion reached was that extracts from the treatise of the neo-Platonist Proclus, "De malorum subsistentia" (handed down in the Latin translation of Morbeka, Cousin ed., Paris, 1864), had been used by Dionysius in the treatise "De div. nom." (c. iv, sections 19-35) A careful analysis brought to light an astonishing agreement of both works in arrangement, sequence of thought, examples, figures, and expressions. It is easy to point out many parallelisms from other and later writings of Proclus, e.g. from his "Institutio theologica", "theologia Platonica", and his commentary on Plato's "Parmenides", "Alcibiades I", and "Timaeus" (these five having been written after 462).

Accordingly, the long-standing problem seem to be solved in its most important phase. As a matter of fact, this is the decision pronounced by the most competent judges, such as Bardenhewer, Erhard, Funk, Diekamp, Rauschen, De Smedt, S.J., Duchesne, Battifol,; and the Protestant scholars of early Christian literature, Gelzer, Harnack, Kruger, Bonwetsch. The chronology being thus determined, an explanation was readily found for the various objections hitherto alleged, viz. the silence of the early Fathers, the later dogmatic terminology, a developed monastic, ceremonial, and penitential system, the echo of neo-Platonism, etc. On the other hand it sets at rest many hypotheses which had been advanced concerning the author and his times and various discussions---whether, eg., a certain Apollinaris, or Synesius, or Dionysius Alexandrinus, or a bishop of Ptolemais, or a pagan hierophant was the writer.

A critical edition of the text of the Areopagite is urgently needed. The Juntina (1516), that of Basle (1539), of Paris (1562 and 1615), and lastly the principal edition of Antwerp (1634) by Corderius, S.J., which was frequently reprinted (Paris, 1644, 1755, 1854) and was included in the Migne collection (P.G., III and IV with Lat. trans. and additions), are insufficient because they make use of only a few of the numerous Greek manuscripts and take no account of the Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations. The following translations have thus far appeared in modern languages: English, by Lupton (London, 1869) and Parker (London, 1894), both of which contain only the "Cael. Hierarchia" and the "Eccles. Hier."; German, by Engelhardt (Sulzbach, 1823) and Storf, "Kirkliche Hierarchie" (Kempten, 1877); French, by Darboy (Paris, 1845) and Dulac (Paris, 1865).

For the older literature, cf. CHEVALIER, Bio. bibl. (Paris, 1905). Recent works treating of Dionysius: HIPLER, Dionysius der Areopagite, Untersuchungen (Ratisbon, 1861); IDEM in Kirkchenlex., s.v.; SCHNEIDER, Areopagitica, Verteiligung ihrer Echteit (Ratisbon, 1886); FROTHINGHAM, Stephen Bar Sudaili (Leyden, 1886); STIGLMAYR, Der Neuplatoniker Proklus als Vorlage des sog. Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Uebel in Hist. Jahrb. der Gorres-Gesellschaft (1895), pp. 253-273 and 721-748: IDEM, Das Aufkommen der pseudo-dionysischen Scriften und ihr Eindringen in die christliche Literatur bis zum Laterankonzil (Feldkirch, Austria, 1895); KOCH, Der pseudepigraphische Charakter der dionysischen Schriften in Theol. Quartalscrift (Tubingen, 1895), pp. 353-420; IDEM, Proklus, als Quelle des Pseudo-Dionysius, Areop. in der Lehrer vom Bosen in Philologus (1895), pp. 438-454; STIGLMAYR, Controversy with DRASEKE, LANGEN, and NIRSCHL in Byzantinische Zeitschrift (1898), pp. 91-110, and (1899), pp. 263-301, and Histor.-polit. Blatter (1900), CXXV, pp. 541-550 and 613-627; IDEM, Die Lehrer von den Sakramenten und der Kirche nach Pseudo-Dionysius in Zeitschrift fur kath. Theol. (Innsbruck, 1898), pp. 246-303; IDEM, Die Eschatologie des Pseudo-Dionysius, ibid. (1899), pp. 1-21; KOCH, Ps.-Dionysius Areop. in seinen Beziehungen zum Neoplatonismus und Mysterienwesen (Mainz, 1900). See also the articles on Dionysius in the Patrologie of BARDENHEWER (Freiburg, 1901), in the Realencyk. fur prot. Theol., and in the Dict. of Christian Biography.

JOS. STIGLMAYR

Dioscorus

Antipope, b. at Alexandria, date unknown; d. 14 October, 530. Originally a deacon of the Church of Alexandria he was adopted into the ranks of the Roman clergy, and by his commanding abilities soon acquired considerable influence in the Church of Rome. Under Pope Symmachus he was sent to Ravenna on an important mission to Theodoric the Goth, and later, under Pope Hormisdas, served with great distinction as papal apocrisiarius, or legate, to the court of Justinian at Constantinople. During the pontificate of Felix IV he became the recognized head of the Byzantine party -- a party in Rome which opposed the growing influence and power of a rival faction, the Gothic, to which the pope inclined.

To prevent a possible contest for the papacy, Pope Felix IV, shortly before his death, had taken the unprecedented step of appointed his own successor in the person of the aged Archdeacon Boniface, his trusted friend and adviser. When, however on the death of Felix (Sept. 530) Boniface II succeeded him, the great majority of the Roman priests -- sixty out of sixty-seven -- refused to accept the new pope and elected in his stead the Greek Dioscorus in the basilica of Constantine (the Lateran) and Boniface in the aula (hall) of the Lateran Palace, know as basilica Julii. Fortunately for the Roman Church, the schism which followed was but of short duration, for in less than a month (14 Oct., 530) Dioscorus died and the presbyters who had elected him wisely submitted to Boniface. In December, 530, Boniface convened a synod at Rome and issued a decree anathematizing Dioscorus as an intruder. He at the same time (it is not known by what means) secured the signatures of the sixty presbyters to his late rival's condemnation, and caused the caused the document to be deposited in the archives of the church. The anathema against Diocorus was however, subsequently removed, and the document burned by Pope Agapetus I (535).

Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE (Paris, 1886), I, 281 sq.; JAFFE, Regesta Romanorum Pontificum (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1885), I, 111-12 In 1883 Amelli discovered the documents bearing on the election of 530, in the chapter library of Novara, and published them with his comments in Scuola Cattolica (Milan), XXI, fascic. 123; CREAGH in Amer. Eccl. Rev., XXVIII (Jan., 1903), 41-50; Theologische Quartalschrift (1903), 91 sq.; GRISAR, Gesch. Roms und der Papste (Freiburg im Br., 1901), I, 494 sq.; WURM, Papstwahl (Cologne, 1902), 12 sq.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Dioscurus

(Also written Dioscorus; Dioscurus from the analogy of Dioscuri).

Bishop of Alexandria; date of birth unknown; d. at Gangra, in Asia Minor, 11 Sept., 454. He had been archdeacon under St. Cyril, whom he succeeded in 444. Soon afterward Theodoret, who had been on good terms with Cyril since 433, wrote him a polite letter, in which he speaks of the report of Dioscurus's virtues and his modesty. In such a letter no contrary report would be mentioned, and we cannot infer much from these vague expressions. The peace establish between John of Antioch and Cyril seems to have continued between their successors until 448, when Domnus, the successor and nephew of John, had to judge the case of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa, who was accused of heresy and many crimes by the Cyrillian party. Domnus awcquited Ibas. The Cyrillian monks of Osrhoene were furious and betook themselves to Dioscurus as their natural protector. Dioscurus wrote to Domnus, complaining that he championed the Nestorian Ibas and Theodoret. Domnus and Theodoret both replied defending themselves, and showing their perfect orthodoxy. The accusers of Ibas went to the court at Constantinople, where the feeble Theodorius II was only too ready to mix in ecclesiastical quarrels. From him the Cyrillians obtain a decree against the Nestorians, in particular against Irenaeus, who had befriended the Nestorians at the Council iof Ephesus, where he was in authority as imperial representative; he was now deposed from the Bishopric of Tyre which he had obtained. Tyheodoret was forbidden to leave his Diocese of Cyrrus. In September a new Bishop of Tyre was appointed, and the Patriarch Domnus, feeling that Dioscurus was about to triumph, wrote to Flavian of Constantinople in order to get his support. Alexandria had of old been the first see of the East and was now only surpassed in power by the imperial city. The Egyptian patriarch had vast civil and political influence, as well as an almost autocratic sway over a hundred bishops and a great army of monks, who were heart and soul devoted to the memory of Cyril, and rather fervent than discriminating in their orthodoxy. Constantinople had been granted the next dignity after Rome by the great Council of 381, and the humiliation of Alexandria had embittered the long standing rivalry between the two sees. Antioch had always tended to support Constantinople, and Domnus was now ready to grant precedence to Flavian. Dioscurus, he said, had already complained that he, Domnus, was betraying the rights of Antioch and Alexandria in admitting the canon of 381, which had never been accepted by Alexandria or Rome. But Flavian was not a helpful ally, for he had neglected to obtain the favour of the eunich Chrysaphiuus, who was all powerful at court. An unforseen incident was now to set the world in a blaze. At a council held by Flavian in November of the same year, 448, Eusebius of Dorylaeum accused the Archimandrite Eusebius of teaching of one nature only in Christ. He was treated with all consideration, but his obstinacy made it unavoidable that he should be deposed and excommunicated. Now Eutyches was godfather to Chrysaphius, and "one nature" was precisely the unfortunate expression of St. Cyril, which his followers were already interpreting in a heretical sense. Eutyches at once therefore became the martyr of Cyrillianism; and though he was not a writer nor a theologian, he has given his name to Monophysite heresy, into which the whole Cyrillian party now plunged once for all.

The Cyrillians were further incensed by the failure of their second attempt to convict Ibas. They had procured an order from the emperor, 25 Oct., 448, for a fresh trial. The bishops who met for this purpose at Tyre in Feb., 449, were obliged by the violence of the Eastern monks to transfer some of their sittings to Berytus. At the end of the month Ibas was exculpated, though the emperor was known to be against him. Dioscurus and his party replied by an unexpected stroke; in March they induced the emperor to issue an invitation to all the greater bishops to attend with their suffragans a general council to be held at Ephesus in August. It was indeed not unreasonable to desire some permanent settlement of the intermittent war, and the pope, St. Leo I, warmly accepted the emperor's proposition, or rather order. Eutyches had written to him, pretending that he had appealed at the time of his comdemnation, and promising to abide by his judgement. He wrote also to other bishops, and we still possess the reply sent to him by St. Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna, where the court of Valentinian III, the Western emperor, had its headquarters. St. Peter tells him to await the decision of the pope, who alone can judge a case concerning the Faith. St. Leo at first had complained that the matter had not at once been referred to him, then, on finding that a full account sent by St. Flavian had been accidentally delayed, wrote a compendious explanation of the whole doctrine involved, and sent it to St. Flavian as a formal and authoritative decision of the question. He reproves Flavian's council for want of severity to an expression of Eutyches, but adds that the archimandrite may be restored if he repent. This letter, the most famous of all Christian antiquity, is known as "St. Leo's Tome". He sent as legates to the council, a bishop named Julius, a priest, Renatus (he died on the way), and the deacon Hilarus, afterwards pope. St. Leo expresses his regret that the shortness of the notice must prevent the presence of any other bishop of the West. It is probable that his difficulty had been anticipated by Dioscurus, who had answered an appeal from Eutyches in a different strain. He regarded him as a downtrdden disciple of the great Cyril, persecuted by the Nestorian Flavian. As his predecessor Peter had appointed a bishop for Constantinople, and as Theophilus had judged St. Chrysostom, so Dioscurus, with the air of a superior, actually declared Etyches absoved and restored. In April Etyches obtained a slight revision of the Acts of the council which had condemned him. In the same month the case of Ibas was again examined, by the emperor's order, this time at Edessa itself, and by a lay inquisitor, Cheraeas, the Governor of Osrhoene. The people received him shouts against Ibas. No defense was heard. On the arrival of Cheraeas's report, the emperor wrote demanding the presence of Ibas's most famous accuser, the monk Bar Tsaouma (Barsumas), and other monks at the approaching council. In all this we see the influence of Dioscurus dominant. In March Theodosius had prohibited Theodoret from coming to the council. On 6 August he shows some fear that his order may be disregarded, in a letter in which he constitutes Dioscurus president of the synod.

The council met at Ephesus on 8 Aug., 449. It was to have been ecumenical in authority, but it was dubbed by St. Leo a latrocinium, and "The Robber Council" has been its title ever since. A full history of it would be out of place here (see EPHESUS, ROBBER COUNCIL OF). It is only necessary to say that the assembly was wholly dominated by Dioscurus. Flavian was not allowed to sit as a bishop, but was on lis trial. When Stephen, Bishop of Ephesus, wished to give Communion to Flavian's slergy, he was attacked by soldiers and monks of Eutyches, 300 in number, who cried out that Stephen was the enemy of the emperor, since he received the emperor's enemies. Eutyches was admitted to defend himself, but the other side was only so far heard that the Acts of the council which had condemned him were read in full. The soldiers and monks were brought into the council, and many bishops were forced to sign a blank paper. The papal legate Hilarus uttered the protest Contradictur, and saved himself by flight. Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum appealed to the pope, and their letters, only lately discovered, were probably taken by Hilarus to Rome, which he reached by a devious route. St. Flavian was thrown into prison and died in three days of the blows and ill usage he received. The bishops who were present gave their testimony, when the Acts were publicly read at the Council of Chalcedon, to the violence used at Ephesus. No doubt they exaggerated somewhat, in order to excuse their own base compliance. But there were too many witnesses to allow them to falsify the whole affair; and we have also the witness of letters of Hilarus, of Eusebius, and of Flavian, and the martyrdom of the latter, to confirm the charges against Diosurus.

No more was read at Chalcedon of the Acts. But at this point begin the Syriac Acts of The Robber Council, which tells us of the carrying out by Dioscurus of a thoroughgoing but short-sited policy. The papal legates came no more to the council, and Domnus excused himself through illness. A few other bishops withdrew or escaped, leaving 101 out of the original 128, and some nine new-comers raised the total to 110. The deposition of Ibas was voted with cries, such as "Let him be burned in the midst of Antioch". The accused was not present, and no witnesses for the defence were heard. Daniel, Bishop of Haran, nephew of Ibas, was degraded. Irenaeus of Tyre, already deposed, was anathematized. Then it was the turn of the leader of the Antiochene party. Ibas had been accused of immorality and a misuse of ecclesiastical property, as well as of heresy; no such charges could be made against the great Theo doret; his character was unblemished, and his orthodoxy had been admitted by St. Cyril himself. Never the less, his earlier writings, in which he had incautiously and with incorrect expressions attqcked St. Cyril and defended Nestorius, were now raked up against him. None ventured to dissent from the sentence of deposition pronounced by Discurus, which ordered his writings to be burnt. If we may bekieve the Acts, Domnus, from his bed of real or feigned sickness, gave a general assent to all the council had done. But this could not save him from the accusation of favouring Nestorians. He was deposed without a word of defence being heard, and a new patriarch, Maximus, was set up in his place.=20

So ended the council. Dioscurus proceeded to Constantinople, and there made his own secretary, Anatolius, bishop of the city. One foe remained. Dioscurus had avoided reading the pope's letter to the Council of Ephesus, though he promised more than once to do so. He evidently could not then venture to contest the pope's ruling as to the Faith. But now, with his own creatures on the thrones of Antioch and Constantinople, and sure of the support of Chrysaphius, he stopped at Nicea, and with ten bishops launched an excommunication of St. Leo himself. It would be vain to attribute all these acts to the desire of his own self aggrandizment. Political motives could not have led him so far. He must have known that in attacking the pope he could have no help from the bishops of the West or from the Western emperor. It is clear that he was genuinely infatuated with his heresy, and was fighting in its interest with all his might.

The pope, on hearing the report of Hilarus, immediately annulled the Acts of the council, absolved all those whom it had excommunicated, and excommunicated the hundred bishops who had taken part in it. He wrote to Theodosius II insisting on the necessity of a council to be held in Italy, under his own direction. The emperor, with the obstinacy of a weak man, supported the council, and paid no attention to the intervention of his sister, St. Pulcheria, nor to that of his colleague, Valentinian III, who, with his mother Galla Placidia, and his wife, the daughter of Theodosius, wrote to him at St. Leo's suggestion. The reasons given to the pope for his conduct are unknown, for his letters to Leo are lost. In June or July, 450, he died of a fall from his horse, and was succeeded by his sister Pulcheria, who took for her colleague and nominal husband the excellent general Marcian. St. Leo, now sure of the support of the rulers of the East, declared a council unnecessary; many bishops had already signed his Tome, and the remainder would do so without difficulty. But the new emperor had already taken steps to carry out the pope's wish, by a council not indeed in Italy, which was outside his jurisdiction, but in the immediate neighborhood of Constantinople, where he himself could watch its proceedings and insure its orthodoxy. St. Leo therefore agreed and sent legates who this time were to preside.

The council, in the intention of both pope and emperor, was to accept and enforce the definition given long since from Rome. Anatolius was ready enough to please the emperor by signing the Tome; and at Pulcheria's intercessiiion he was accepted as bishop by St. Leo. The latter permitted the restoration to communion of those bishops who repented after their conduct at the Robber Council, with the exception of Dioscurus and of the leaders of that synod, whose case he first reserved to the Apostolic See, and then commited to the council. The synod met at Chalcedon, and its six hundred bishops made it the largest of ancient councils (see Chalcedon, Ecumenical Council of). The papal legates presided, supported by lay commissioners supported by the emperor, who were in practice the real presidents, since the legates did not speak Greek. The first point raised was the position of Dioscurus. He had taken his seat, but the legates objected that he was on trial. The commissioners asked for the charge against him to be formulated, and it was replied that he had held a council without the permission of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never been permitted. This statement was difficult to explain, before the discovery of the Syriac Acts; but we now know that Dioscurus had continued his would be general council for many sessions after the papal legates had taken their departure. The commissioners ordered him to sit in the midst as accused. (A sentence in this passage of the Acts is wrongly translated in the old Latin version; this was carelessly followed by Hefele, who thus led Bright into the error of supposing that the commissioners addressed to the legates a rebuke they meant in reality for Dioscurus). The Alexandrian patriarch was now as much deserted by his own party as his victims had been deserted at Ephesus by their natural defenders. Some sixty bishops, Egyptian, Palestinian, and Illyrian, were on his side, but were afraid to say a word in his defence, though they raised a great commotion at the introduction into the assembly of Theodoret, who had been especially excluded from the Council of Ephesus. The Acts of the first session of the Robber Council were read, continually interrupted by the disclaimers of the bishops. The leaders of that council, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Maximus of Antioch, now declared that Flavian was orthodox; Anatolius had long since gone over to the winning side. Dioscurus alone stood his ground. He was at least no time-server, and he was a convinced heretic. After this session he refused to appear. At the second session (the third, according to the printed texts and Hefele, but the Ballerini are right in inverting the order of the second and third session) the case of Dioscurus was continued. Petitions against him from Alexandria were read. In these he was accused of injustice and cruelty by the family of Cyril and of many other crimes, even against the emperor and the State. How much of this is true it is impossible to say, as Dioscurus refused to appear or to make any defence. The accusations were dropped, and judgemnet must necessarily go against Diocurus, if only for contempt of court. The bishops therefore repeatedly demanded that the legates should deliver judgement. Paschasinus, therefore, the senior legate, recited the crimes of Dioscurus—he had absolved Eutyches contrary to the canons, even before the council; he was still contumacious when others asked for pardon; he had not had the pope's letter read; he had excommunicated the pope; he had been thrice formally cited and refused to appear—"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Archbishop of elder Rome, Leo, by us and the most holy council, together with the thrice blessed and praiseworthy Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and base of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the orthodox Faith, has stripped him of the episcopal and of all sacerdotal dignity. Wherefore this most holy and great council will decree that which is accordance with the canons against the aforesaid Dioscurus." All the bishops signified their agreement in a few words and then all signed the papal sentence. A short notice of his deposition was sent to Dioscurus. It is taken almost word for word from that sent to Nestorius by the Council of Ephesus twenty years before. With the rest of the council-its definition of the Faith imposed upon it Pope Leo, its rehabilitation of Theodoret and of Ibas, etc.,-- we have nothing to do. Dioscurus affected to ridicule his condemnation, saying that he should soon be restored. But the council decreed that he was incapable of restoration, and wrote in this sense to the emperors, reciting his crimes. He was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, where he died three years later. The whole of Egypt revered him as the true representative of Cyrillian teaching, and from this time forth the Patriarchate of Alexandrian was lost to the Church. Dioscurus has been honoured in it as its teacher, and it has remained Eutychian to the present day.

The chief authority for the events which preceded the Robber Council (besides some letters of Theodoret) is the Syriac version of the Acts of that council, published from codex of 535in the Brit. Mus.; Secundam Synodum Ephesinam necnon excerpta quae ad eam pertinent. . . .,Perry ed. (Oxford, 1875); The Second Synod of Ephesus, from Syriac MSS., tr.. by Perry (Dartford, 1881); German tr. by Hoffman, Verhandlungen der Kirchenversammlung zu Ephesus am xxii. August CDXLIX aus einer syrischen HS. (Kiel, 1873); the best dissertations on it are Martin, Le Pseudo-Synode connu dans l'histoire sous le nom de brigandage d'Ephese, etudie d'apres ses actes, en syriaque (Paris, 1875), and articles by the same in Rev. des Qu. Hist., XVI (1874), and in Rev. des Sciences Eccl., IX-X; also Largent in Rev des Qu. Hist., XXVII (1880); RIVINGTON, The Roman Primacy, 450-451 (London, 1899). Dr. Rivington has well noted the mistakes of Bright, but he has fallen into some himself, e.g. when he calls Dioscurus the nephew of St. Cyril or blames him for ignoring the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed. The appeals of Flavian and Eusebius were first published by Amelli, San Leone Magno e l'Oriente (Rome, 1882, and Montecassino, 1890) and with other documents in his Spicileg. Cassin (Montecassino, 1893); also by MOMMSEN, in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, XI (1886). The older historians, who wrote before the discovery of the Syriac Acts, are antiquated as regards Dioscurus, including Hefele (but we await the next volume of the new French edition by Leclercq), and Bright, with the exception of his posthumous The Age of the Fathers (London, 1903). For more general literature see CHALCEDON; a fragment of a letter of Dioscurus written from Gangra to the Alexandrians is found in the Antirrhetica of NICEPHORUS in PITRA, Spicileg, Solesm., IV, 380. A panegyric on Macarius of Tkhou, preserved in Coptic, is not genuine [published by AMELINEAU, monum. pour servir a l'hist. Den l'Egypte chr. au 4me et 5me siecles (Paris, 1888), see REVILLOUT in Rev. Egyptol., 1880-2]. A Coptic life has been published in French and Syriac by F. Nau, Histoire de Discore . . .par son disciple Theophiste, in Journal Asiatique, Xme serie (1903) 5,241; Coptic fragments of the Paneg. And the life pub. By Crum, in Proceeding of Soc. Of Bibl. Archaeol. (1907), XXV, 267. A letter to Dioscurus from St. Leo, 21 June, 445 (Ep. xi), is interesting. The Pope, politely but peremptorily, orders all ordinations of priests and deacons to be in the night between Saturday and Sunday; also on festivals when there is a great concourse the Sacrifice is to be repeated as often as the basilica is refilled, that none may be deprived of his devotion.

JOHN CHAPMAN

Papal Diplomatics

The word diplomatics, following a Continental usage which long ago found recognition in Mabillon's "De Re Diplomaticâ", has of late come to denote also in English the science of ancient official documents, more especially of those emanating from the chanceries of popes, kings, emperors, and other authorities possessing a recognized jurisdiction. Etymologically diplomatics should mean the science of diplomas, and diploma, in its classical acceptation, signified only a permit to use the cursus publicus (i. e. the public posting-service), or else a discharge accorded to veteran soldiers and imparting certain privileges. But the scholars of the Renaissance erroneously supposed that diploma was the correct classical term for an sort of charter, and from them the word came into use among jurists and historians and obtained general currency.

HISTORY OF DIPLOMATICS

There is abundant evidence that during the Middle Ages a certain watchfulness, necessitated unfortunately by the prevalence of forgeries of all kinds, was exercised over the authenticity of papal Bulls, royal charters, and other instruments. In this control of documents and in the precautions taken against forgery the Chancery of the Holy See set a good example. Thus we find Gregory VII refraining even from attaching the usual leaden seal to a Bull for fear it should fall into unscrupulous hands and be used for fraudulent purposes (Dubitavimus hic sigillum plumbeum ponere ne si illud inimici caperent de eo falsitatem aliquam facerent. — Jaffé-Löwenfeld, "Regesta", no. 5225; cf. no. 5242); while we owe to Innocent III various rudimentary instructions in the science of diplomatics with a view to the detection of forgeries (see Migne, P. L., CCXIV, 202, 322, etc.). Seeing that even an ecclesiastic of the standing of Lanfranc has been seriously accused of conniving at the fabrication of Bulls (H. Böhmer, "Die Fälschungen Erzbischof Lanfranks", 1902; cf. Liebermann's review in "Deutsche Literaturzeitung", 1902, p. 2798, and the defence of Lanfrane by L. Saltet in "Bulletin de litt. eccl.", Toulouse, 1907, 227 sqq.), the need of some system of tests is obvious. But the medieval criticism of documents was not very satisfactory even in the hands of a jurist like Alexander III (see his comments on two pretended privileges of Popes Zacharias and Leo, Jaffé-Löwenfeld, "Regesta", no. 11,896), and though Laurentius Valla, the humanist, was right in denouncing the Donation of Constantine, and though the Magdeburg Centuriator, Matthias Flacius, was right in attacking the Forged Decretals, their methods, in themselves, were often crude and inconclusive. The true science of diplomatics dates, in fact, only from the great Benedictine Mabillon (1632-1707), whose fundamental work, "De Re Diplomaticâ" (Paris, 1681), was written to correct the misleading principles advocated in the criticism of ancient documents by the Bollandist Father Papenbroeck (Papebroch). To the latter's credit be it said that he at once publicly recognized the value of his rival's work and adopted his system. Other scholars were not so discerning, and assailants, like Germon and Hardouin in France, and, in less degree, George Hickes in England, rejected Mabillon's criteria; but the verdict of posterity is entirely in his favour, so that M. Giry quotes with approval the words of Dom Toustain: "His system is the true one. Whoever follows any other road cannot fail to lose his way. Whoever seeks to build on any other foundation will build upon the sand." In point of fact., all that has been done since Mabillon's time has been to develop his methods and occasionally to modify his judgments upon some point of detail. After the issue of a "Supplement" in 1704, a second, enlarged and improved edition of the "De Re Diplomaticâ" was prepared by Mabillon himself and published in 1709, after his death, by his pupil, Dom Ruinart. Seeing, however, that this pioneer work had not extended to any documents later than the thirteenth century and had taken no account of certain classes of papers, such as the ordinary letters of the popes and privileges of a more private character, two other Benedictines of St-Maur, Dom Toustain and Dom Tassin, compiled a work in six large quarto volumes, with many facsimiles etc., known as the "Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique" (Paris, 1750-1765), which, though it marks but a small advance on Mabillon's own treatise, has been widely used, and has been presented in a more summary form by Dom Vaines and others.

With the exception of some useful works specially consecrated to particular countries (e.g. Maffei, "Istoria diplomatica", Mantua, 1727, unfinished; and Muratori, "De Diplomatibus Antiquis", included in his "Antiquitates Italicæ", 1740, vol. III), as also the treatise of G. Marini on papyrus documents (I papiri diplomatici, Rome, 1805), no great advance was made in the science for a century and a half after Mabillon's death. The "Dictionnaire raisonné de diplomatique chrétienne", by M. Quentin, which forms part of Migne's "Encyclopedia", is a rather unskilful digest of older works, and the sumptuous "Eléments de paléographie" of de Wailly (2 vols., 4to, 1838) has little independent merit. But within the last fifty years immense progress has been made in all diplomatic knowledge, and not least of all in the study of papal documents. In the bibliography appended to the articles BULLS AND BRIEFS and BULLARIUM, the reader will find references to the more important works. Amongst the pioneers of this revival the names of Léopold Delisle, the chief librarian of the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, and of M. de Mas-Latrie, professor at the Ecole de Chartres, as well as that of Julius von Pflugk-Harttung, the editor of a magnificent series of facsimiles of papal Bulls, deserve to occupy a foremost place; but their work has been carried on in Germany and elsewhere, often by those who are not themselves Catholics. It must be obvious that the photographic reproductions of documents which can now be procured so easily and cheaply have enormously facilitated that process of minute comparison of documents which forms the basis of all palæographic studies. Further, the improvement in the cataloguing and the extension of facilities under Pope Leo XIII in such great libraries as that of the Vatican have made their contents much more accessible and have rendered possible such a calendar of early papal Bulls as has been appearing since 1902, being the results of the researches of Messrs. P. Kehr, A. Brackmann, and W. Wiederhold, in "Nachrichten der Göttingen Gesellsehaft der Wissenschaften". Of the series of papal regesta now being published by various scholars, especially by members of the Ecole Française de Rome, a sufficient account has been given in the second part of the article BULLARIUM. Still greater progress in the study of diplomatics is no doubt to be looked for from the facilities afforded by the recently founded journal, "Archiv für Urkundenforschung" (Leipzig, 1907), edited by Messrs. Karl Brandi, H. Bresslau, and M. Tangl, all acknowledged masters in this subject.

SUBJECT-MATTER OF PAPAL DIPLOMATICS

As this topic has already been treated in part in the article BULLS AND BRIEFS, it will be sufficient here to recall the principal elements in the process of expediting ancient papal documents, all of which need special attention. We have first of all the officials who are concerned in the preparation of such instruments and who collectively form the "Chancery". The constitution of the Chancery, which in the case of the Holy See seems to date back to a schola notariorum, with a primicerius at its head, of which we hear under Pope Julius I (337-352), varied from period to period, and the part played by the different officials composing it necessarily varied also. Besides the Holy See, each bishop also had some sort of chancery for the issue of his own episcopal Acts. An acquaintance with the procedure of the Chancery is clearly only a study preparatory to the examination of the document itself. Secondly, we have the text of the document. As the position of the Holy See became more fully recognized, the business of the Chancery increased, and we note a marked tendency to adhere strictly to the forms prescribed by traditional usage. Various collections of these formula, of which the "Liber Diurnus" is one of the most ancient, were compiled at an early date. Many others will be found in the "Receuil général des formules" by de Rozière (Paris, 1861-1871), though these, like the series published by Zeumer (Formulæ Merovingici et Karolini ævi, Hanover, 1886), are mainly secular in character. After the text of the document, which of course varies according to its nature, and in which not merely the wording but also the rhythm (the so-called cursus) has often to be considered, attention must be paid;

• to the manner of dating,
• to the signatures,
• to the attestations of witnesses etc.,
• to the seals and the attachment of the seals,
• to the material upon which it is written and to the manner of folding, as well as
• to the handwriting

Under this last heading the whole science of palæography may be said to be involved.

All these matters fall within the scope of diplomatics, and all offer different tests for the authenticity of any given document. There are other details which often need to be considered, for example the Tironian (or shorthand) notes, which are of not infrequent occurrence in primitive Urkunden, both papal and imperial, and which have only begun of late years to be adequately investigated (see Tangl, "Die tironischen Noten", in "Archiv für Urkundenforschung", 1907, I, 87-166). A special section in any comprehensive study of diplomatics is also likely to be devoted to spurious documents, of which, as already stated, the number is surprisingly great.

Besides the books referred to in the course of this article see the bibliography of the article BULLS AND BRIEFS. A larger selection of authorities may be found in such treatises as those of GIRY, Manuel de Diplomatique (Paris, 1894); and BRESSLAU, Handbuch der Urkundenlehre (Leipzig, 1889), I. One very useful work for the study of papal diplomatics, the Practica Cancellariœ Apostolicœ, ed. SCHMITZ-KALLENBERG (Munich, 1904), though confined to the working of the Chancery at the close of the fifteenth century, is valuable for the indirect light thrown on other periods. Consult also the important work of TANGL, Die päpstlichen Kanzlei-Ordnungen von 1200-1500 (Innsbruck, 1894); ERBEN, Urkundenlehre (Munich, 1907); and ROSEMUND, Die Fortschritte der Diplomatik seit Mabillon (Munich, 1897), though these last two books have little directly to do with papal documents. In A. MEISTER'S important work on early ciphers, Die Anfänge der modernen diplomatischen Geheimschrift (Paderborn, 1902), the papal Chancery is hardly mentioned (see, however, p. 34). Finally, the best summary account of papal diplomatics is to be found in the section contributed by SCHMITZ-KALLENBERG to the Grundriss der Geschichtswissenschaft (Leipzig, 1906). vol. I, pp. 172-230.

HERBERT THURSTON.

Diptych

(Or diptychon, Greek diptychon from dis, twice and ptyssein, to fold).

A diptych is a sort of notebook, formed by the union of two tablets, placed one upon the other and united by rings or by a hinge. These tablets were made of wood, ivory, bone. or metal. Their inner surfaces had ordinarily a raised frame and were covered with wax, upon which characters were scratched by means of a stylus. Diptychs were known among the Greeks from the sixth century before Christ. They served as copy-books for the exercise of penmanship, for correspondence, and various other uses. The Roman military certificates, privilegia militum, were a kind of diptych. Between the two tablets others were sometimes inserted and the diptych would then be called a triptych, polyptych, etc. The term diptych is often restricted to a highly ornamented type of notebooks. They were generally made out of ivory with carved work, and were sometimes from twelve to sixteen inches in height. In the fourth and fifth centuries a distinction arose between profane and ecclesiastical (liturgical) diptychs, the former being frequently given as presents by high-placed persons. It was customary to commemorate in this way one's elevation to a public office, or any event of personal importance, e.g. a marriage. The consuls, on the day of the installation, were wont to offer diptychs to their friends and even to the emperor. Those presented to the latter often had a border of gold and were quite large. Their tablets often exhibited on a central plate the portrait of the sovereign, surrounded by four other plates. The (undated) Barberini ivory at the Louvre is thus constructed and once served as an ecclesiastical diptych (see below). Some believe it to be the binding of a books offered to the emperor. Strzygowski holds it to be of Egyptian origin and thinks that the portrait is that of Constantine the Great, defender of the Faith. The oldest dated consular diptych is that of Probus (406); it is kept in the treasury of the cathedral of Aosta, Piedmont. The latest is that of the Eastern consul, Basilius (541), one tablet of which is at the Uffizi Museum in Florence and the other at the Brera in Milan. The Theodosian Code (384) forbade the offering of ivory diptychs to any but the regular (i.e. not honorary) consuls. The tablet at the Mayer Museum in Liverpool, bearing the image of Marcus Aurelius (d. l80), is prior to this enactment. The consular diptychs are recognizable by their inscriptions or by the figure of the consul which they bear. On the diptych of Boetius at Brescia (487) and several others of the same type the consul is clad in a trabea (a kind of toga); he holds in his left hand the scipio (consular sceptre) and in his right the mappa circensis, or white cloth which he used to wave as the signal for the games in the circus. These games (ludi) or other liberalities offered to the people by the consul were frequently represented on the tablets of the diptychs.

There is less certainty concerning the diptychs of officials other than consuls, e.g. praetors, quaestors, etc. The diptych of Rufius Probianus V. C. (i.e. vir clarissimus) vicarius urbis Romae, in the Berlin Museum, is the most precious relic of this class, and probably dates from the end of the fourth century. Among the diptychs of private individuals that of Gallienus Concessus, discovered at Rome on the Esquiline, exhibits only the name of its owner. Others were richly ornamented and reproduced often some of the masterpieces of ancient art. Thus on a diptych in the Mayer Museum, Liverpool, are seen Aesculapius and Telesphorus Hygieia, and Amor. The most beautiful of the profane diptychs was carved at the time of a marriage between the Symmachi and the Nicomachi (392 to 394, or 401). It represents on each leaf (one of which is at the South Kensington Museum and the other, in a very damaged condition, at Cluny) a woman performing a sacrifice. Many of the profane diptychs were preserved in the treasuries of the churches, where they were eventually used for liturgical purposes or enshrined in bookbindings or in goldsmith work. The diptych of Boetius, among others bears on the interior, some liturgical texts and religious paintings, attributed to the seventh century. The Liege diptych of the consul Anastasius (517), one leaf of which is at Berlin and the other at South Kensington, bears an inscription of forty-two lines and the prayer Communicantes from the Canon of the Mass. Another of the same consul (in the BibliothèqueNationale, Paris) has a list of the bishops of Bourges. At the cathedral of Monza, Lombardy, a diptych represents in the dress of consuls king David and St. Gregory the Great. It is perhaps an ancient consular diptych, transformed in the eighth or ninth century; according to some it appears to be of ecclesiastical origin. Many carved diptychs reproduced purely religious subjects. On a diptych in the treasury of Rouen cathedral the figure of St. Paul is exactly the same as that on a sarcophagus in Gaul. A diptych leaf in the treasury of Tongres was evidently influenced by the carvings on the cathedra of St. Maximinus at Ravenna, and seems to have belonged to an ancient episcopal see. Certain diptychs with religious subjects, e.g. the Holy Sepulchre and the holy women at the Tomb of Christ (Milan), an angel (British Museum), probably date from the fourth or fifth century. Diptych leaves divided into five compartments have generally served as a cover for copies of the Gospels. The diptychs, though often clumsily executed, are important for the history of sculpture, there being a good number of them extant, and several being accurately dated. At different periods in the Middle Ages numerous diptychs or triptychs of ivory were made, to serve as little devotional panels.

The liturgical use of diptychs offers considerable interest. In the early Christian ages it was customary to write on diptychs the names of those, living or dead, who were considered as members of the Church a signal evidence of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. Hence the terms "diptychs of the living" and "diptychs of the dead." Such liturgical diptychs varied in shape and dimension. Their use (sacrae tabulae, matriculae, libri vivorum et mortuorum) is attested in the writings of St. Cyprian (third century) and by the history of St. John Chrysostom (fourth century), nor did they disappear from the churches until the twelfth century in the West and the fourteenth century in the East. In the ecclesiastical life of antiquity these liturgical diptychs served various purposes. It is probable that the names of the baptized were written on diptychs, which were thus a kind of baptismal register. The "diptychs of the living" would include the names of the pope, bishops, and illustrious persons, both lay and ecclesiastical, of the benefactors of a church, and of those who offered the Holy Sacrifice. To these names were sometimes added those of the Blessed Virgin, of martyrs, and of other saints. From such diptychs came the first ecclesiastical calendars and the martyrologies. The "diptychs of the dead" would include the names of persons otherwise qualified for inscription on the diptychs of the living, e.g. the bishops of the community (also other bishops), moreover priests and laymen who had died in the odour of sanctity. It is to this kind of diptychs that the later necrologies owe their origin. Occasionally special diptychs were made to contain only the names of a series of bishops; in this way arose at an early date the episcopal lists or catalogues of occupants of sees. Whatever their immediate purpose the liturgical diptychs admitted only the names of persons in communion with the Church; the names of heretics and of excommunicated members were never inserted. Exclusion from these lists was a grave ecclesiastical penalty; the highest dignity, episcopal or imperial, would not avail to save the offender from its infliction. The content of the diptychs was read out, either from the ambo (q. v.) or from the altar by a priest or a deacon. In this respect a variety of customs obtained in different churches and at different periods, sometimes the diptychs were simply laid on the altar during Mass, and when read publicly, such reading did not always occur at the same stage of the Mass. The order of which traces are now seen in the Roman Canon of the Mass was the fixed usage of the Roman Church as early as the fifth century. In that venerable document a long passage after the Sanctus corresponding to the ancient recitation of the diptychs of the living; it contains, as is well known, mention of those for whom the Mass is offered, of the pope, of the bishop of the diocese, of the Blessed Virgin, and of several saints. At Easter and at Pentecost the Hanc igitur furnished a proper occasion to mention the names of the newly baptized, now mentioned only as a body. Finally the recitation of the "diptychs of the dead" is still recalled by the Memento which for the consecration.

R. MAERE

Spiritual Direction

In the technical sense of the term, spiritual direction is that function of the sacred ministry by which the Church guides the faithful to the attainment of eternal happiness. It is part of the commission given to her in the words of Christ: "Going, therefore, teach ye all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt., xxviii, 19 sq.). She exercises this function both in her public teaching, whether in word or writing, and in the private guidance of souls according to their individual needs; but it is the private guidance that is generally understood by the term "spiritual direction".

I. In one way, the Church requires all her adult members to submit to such private direction, namely, in the Sacrament of Penance. For she entrusts to her priests in the confessional, not only the part of judge to absolve or retain the sins presently confessed, but also the part of a director of consciences. In the latter capacity he must instruct his penitents if ignorant of their duties, point out the wrong or the danger in their conduct, and suggest the proper means to be employed for amendment or improvement. The penitent, on his part, must submit to this guidance. He must also, in cases of serious doubt regarding the lawfulness of his action, ask the advice of his director. For a person who acts in a practical doubt, not knowing whether he is offending God or not, and yet consenting to do what he thinks to be morally wrong, thereby offends his Creator. Such consultation is the more necessary as no one is a good judge in his own cause: a business man is sometimes blind to the injustice of a tempting bargain, and passion often invents motives for unlawful indulgence.

II. Still more frequently is spiritual direction required in the lives of Christians who aim at the attainment of perfection (see PERFECTION). All religious are obliged to do so by their profession; and many of the faithful, married and unmarried, who live amidst worldly cares aspire to such perfection as is attainable in their states of life. This striving after Christian perfection means the cultivation of certain virtues and watchfulness against faults and spiritual dangers. The knowledge of this constitutes the science of asceticism. The spiritual director must be well versed in this difficult science, as his advice is very necessary for such souls. For, as Cassian writes, "by no vice does the devil draw a monk headlong and bring him to death sooner than by persuading him to neglect the counsel of the Elders and trust to his own judgment and determination" (Conf. of Abbot Moses).

III. Since, in teaching the Faith, the Holy Ghost speaks through the sovereign pontiff and the bishops of the Church, the work of the private spiritual director must never be at variance with this infallible guidance. Therefore the Church has condemned the doctrine of Molinos, who taught that directors are independent of the bishops, that the Church does not judge about secret matters, and that God and the director alone enter into the inner conscience (Denziger, Enchiridion, nos. 1152, 1153). Several of the most learned Fathers of the Church devoted much attention to spiritual direction, for instance, St. Jerome, who directed St. Paula and her daughter St. Eustochium; and some of them have left us learned treatises on ascetic theology. But while the hierarchy of the Church is Divinely appointed to guard the purity of faith and morals, the Holy Spirit, who "breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth" (John, iii, 8), has often chosen priests or religious, and even simple laymen and women, and filled them with supernatural wisdom in order to provide for the spiritual direction of others.

IV. Whoever the director be, he will find the principal means of progress towards perfection to consist in the exercise of prayer (q. v.) and mortification (q. v.). But upon the special processes of these two means, spiritual guides have been led by the Holy Spirit in various directions. Different is the type for the solitary in the desert, the cenobite in the community, for a St. Louis or a Blanche of Castile in a palace, St. Frances of Rome in her family, or a St. Zita in her kitchen, for contemplative and for active religious orders and congregations. Another marked difference in the direction of souls arises from the presence or absence of the mystical element in the life of the person to be directed (see MYSTICISM). Mysticism involves peculiar modes of action by which the Holy Ghost illumines a soul in ways which transcend the normal use of the reasoning powers. The spiritual director who has such persons in charge needs the soundest learning and consummate prudence. Here especially sad mistakes have been made by presumption and imprudent zeal, for men of distinction in the Church have gone astray in this matter.

V. Even in ordinary cases of spiritual direction in which no mysticism is involved, numerous errors must be guarded against; the following deserve special notice: (1) The false principles of the Jansenists, who demanded of their penitents an unattainable degree of purity of conscience before they allowed them to receive Holy Communion. Many priests, not members of the sect, were yet so far tainted with its severity as gradually to alienate large numbers of their penitents from the sacraments and consequently from the Church. (2) The condemned propositions summarized under the headings "De perfectione christianâ" in Denziger's "Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum" (Würzburg, 1900), page 485, which are largely the principles of Quietism. These are specimens: To obtain perfection a man ought to deaden all his faculties; he should take no vows, should avoid external work, ask God for nothing in particular, not seek sensible devotion, not study science, not consider rewards and punishments, not employ reasoning in prayer. (3) The errors and dangers pointed out in the Encyclical of Leo XIII, "Testem Benevolentiæ". In it the pope singles out for particular condemnation: "First, all external guidance is set aside for those souls which are striving after Christian perfection as being superfluous, or indeed not useful in any sense, the contention being that the Holy Spirit pours richer and more abundant graces into the soul than formerly; so that, without human intervention, He teaches and guides them by some hidden instinct of His own." In the same document warnings are given against inculcating an exaggerated esteem of the natural virtues, thus depreciating the supernatural ones; also against casting contempt on religious vows, "as if these were alien to the spirit of our times, in that they restrict the bounds of human liberty, and that they are more suitable to weak than to strong minds".

VI. An important document of Leo XIII bearing specifically on the direction of religious souls is the decree "Quemadmodum" of 1890. It forbids all religious superiors who are not priests "the practice of thoroughly inquiring into the state of their subjects' consciences, which is a thing reserved to the Sacrament of Penance". It also forbids them to refuse to their subjects an extraordinary confessor, especially in cases where the conscience of the persons so refused stands greatly in need of this privilege; as also "to take it on themselves to permit at their pleasure their subjects to approach the Holy Table, or even sometimes to forbid them Holy Communion altogether". The pope abrogates all constitutions, usages, and customs so far as they tend to the contrary; and absolutely forbids such superiors as are here spoken of to induce in any way their subjects to make to them any such manifestations of conscience. (See the decree "Quemadmodum", with explanations, in the American Ecclesiastical Review, March, 1893.).

VII. Catholic literature is rich in works of ascetic and mystical theology; of which we mention a few below. But it must be noticed that such works cannot be recommended for the use of all readers indiscriminately. The higher the spiritual perfection aimed at, especially when mysticism enters into the case, the more caution should be used in selecting and consulting the guide-books, and the more danger there is that the direction given in them may be misapplied. Spiritual direction is as much a matter for the personal supervision of an experienced living guide as is the practice of medicine; the latter deals with abnormal defects of the body, the former with the acquisition of uncommon perfection by the soul.

SCARAMELLI, Directorium Asceticum, or Guide to the Spiritual Life (Dublin, 1870); IDEM, Directorium Mysticum, or Divine Asceticism; GUILLORÉ, Manière de Conduire les Ames (Lyons and Paris, 1853); FABER, Growth in Holiness (Baltimore); LANCOGNE, Manifestation of Conscience (New York, 1892); SCHRAM, Institutiones Theologiae Mysticae; NEUMAYR, Idea Theologiae Asceticae, or Science of the Spiritual Life (London, 1876); IDEM, Higher Paths in the Spiritual Life (London); ST. TERESA, The Interior Castle (London, 1859); IDEM, Way of Perfection (London, 1860); ST. IGNATIUS, Spiritual Exercises (London, 1900); ST. FRANCIS OF SALES, The Devout Christian (New York); SCRUPOLI, The Spiritual Combat (London); CLARE, Science of the Spiritual Life (London, 1896); ST. LIGUORI, The Christian Virtues (New York); GROU, Manual of Interior Souls (London, 1905); LALLEMANT, Spiritual Doctrine (New York, 1884); LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis (Friburg, 1889); SCHIELER-HEUSER, Theory and Practice of the Confessional, Part III, sect. 2, The Office of the Confessor; DUPONT, Guide Spirituel (Paris, 1866); CARDINAL BONA, Traité du Discernement des Esprits (Tournai, 1840); LEWIS OF GRANADA, Sinner's Guide (Philadelphia, 1877); BELLECIUS, Solid Virtue (New York, 1882).

CHARLES COPPENS

Catholic Directories

The ecclesiastical sense of the word directory, as will be shown later, has become curiously confused with its secular use, but historically speaking the ecclesiastical sense is the earlier. Directorium simply means guide, but in the later Middle Ages it came to be specially applied to guides for the recitation of Office and Mass. For example, in the early part of the fifteenth century one Clement Maydeston, probably following earlier foreign precedents, adopted the title "Directorium Sacerdotum" for his reorganized Sarium Ordinal. In this way the words "Directorium Sacerdotum" came to stand at the head of a number of books, some of them among the earliest products of the printing press in England, which were issued to instruct the clergy as to the form of Mass and Office to be followed from day to day throughout the year. This employment of the word directorium was by no means peculiar to England. To take one convenient example, though not the earliest that might be chosen, we find a very similar work published at Augsburg in 1501, which bears the title: "Index sive Directorium Missarum Horarumque secundum ritum chori Constanciensis diocesis dicendarumn". As this title suffices to show, a directorium or guide for the recitation of Office and Mass had to be constructed according to the needs of a particular diocese or group of dioceses, for as a rule each diocese has certain saints' days and feasts peculiar to itself, and these have all to be taken account of in regulating the Office, a single change often occasioning much disturbance by the necessity it creates of transferring coincident celebrations to other days. Out of the "Directorium Sacerdotum" which in England was often called the "Pye", and which seems to have come into almost general use about the time of the invention of printing, our present Directory, the "Ordo divini Officii recitandi Sacrique peragendi" has gradually developed. We may note a few of the characteristics both of the actual and the ancient usage.

ACTUAL USAGE

It is now the custom for every diocese, or, in cases where the calendar followed is substantially identical, for a group of dioceses belonging to the same province or country, to have a "Directory" or "Ordo recitandi" printed each year for the use of all the clergy. It consists simply of a calendar for the year, in which there are printed against each day concise directions concerning the Office and Mass to be said on that day. The calendar is usually provided with some indication of fast days, special indulgences, days of devotion, and other items of information which it may be convenient for the clergy to be reminded of as they occur. This Ordo is issued with the authority of the bishop or bishops concerned, and is binding upon the clergy under their jurisdiction. The religious orders have usually a Directory of their own, which, in the case of the larger orders, often differs according to the country in which they are resident. For the secular clergy the calendar of the Roman Missal and Breviary, apart from special privilege, always forms the basis of the "Ordo recitandi". To this the feasts and saints' days celebrated in the diocese are added, and, as the higher grade of these special celebrations often causes them to take precedence of those in the ordinary calendar, a certain amount of shifting and transposition is inevitable, even apart from the complications introduced by the movable feasts. All this has to be calculated and arranged beforehand in accordance with the rules supplied by the general rubrics of the Missal and Breviary. Even so; the clergy of particular churches have further to provide for the celebration of their own patronal or dedication feasts, and to make such other changes in the Ordo as these insertions may impose. The Ordo is always compiled in Latin, though an exception is sometimes made in the Directories drawn up for nuns who recite the Divine Office, and, as it is often supplemented with a few extra pages of diocesan notices, recent decrees of the Congregation of Rites, regulations for the saying of votive Offices, etc., matters only affecting the clergy, it is apt to acquire a somewhat professional and exclusive character.

How long a separate and annual "Ordo recitandi" has been printed for the use of the English clergy it seems impossible to discover. Possibly Bishop Challoner, Vicar Apostolic from 1741 to 1781, had something to do with its introduction. But in 1759 a Catholic London printer conceived the idea of translating the official "Directorium", or Ordo, issued for the clergy, and accordingly published in that year: "A Lay Directory or a help to find out and assist at Vespers . . . . on Sundays and Holy Days". Strange to say, another Catholic printer, seemingly the publisher of the official Ordo, shortly afterwards, conceiving his privileges invaded, produced a rival publication: "The Laity's Directory or the Order of the (Catholic) Church Service for the year 1764". This "Laity's Directory" was issued year by year for three-quarters of a century, gradually growing in size, but in 1837 it was supplanted by "The Catholic Directory" which since 1855 has been published in London by Messrs. Burns & Lambert, now Burns and Oates. The earliest numbers of the "Laity's Directory" contained nothing save an abbreviated translation of the clerical "Ordo recitandi", but towards the end of the eighteenth century a list of the Catholic chapels in London, advertisements of schools, obituary notices, important ecclesiastical announcements, and other miscellaneous matters began to be added, and at a still later date we find an index of the names and addresses of the Catholic clergy serving the missions in England and Scotland. This feature has been imitated in the "Irish Catholic Director" and in the Catholic Directories of the United States. Hence the widespread idea that Catholic directories are so called because they commonly form an address book for the churches and clergy of a particular country, but an examination of the early numbers of the "Laity's Directory" conclusively shows that it was only to the calendar with its indication of the daily Mass and Office that the name originally applied.

FORMER USAGE

In the Middle Ages, and indeed almost down to the invention of printing, the books used in the service of the Church were much more divided up than they are at present. Instead of one book, our modern Breviary for example, containing the whole Office, we find at least four books — the Psalterium, the Hymnarium, the Antiphonarium, and the Legendarium, or book of lessons, all in separate volumes. Rubrics or ritual directions were rarely written down in connexion with the text to which they belonged (we are speaking here of the Mass and Office, not of the services of rarer occurrence such as those in the Pontifical), but they were probably at first communicated by oral tradition only, and when they began to be recorded they took only such summary form as we find in the "Ordines Romani" of Hittorp and Mabillon. However, about the eleventh century there grew up a tendency towards greater elaboration and precision in rubrical directions for the services, and at the same time we notice the beginning of a more or less strongly marked division of these directions into two classes, which in the case of the Sarum Use are conveniently distinguished as the Customary and the Ordinal. Speaking generally, we may say that the former of these rubrical books contains the principles and the latter their application; the former determines those matters that are constant and primarily the duties of persons, the latter deals with the arrangements which vary from day to day and from year to year. It is out of the latter of these books, i. e. the Ordinal (often called Ordinarium and Liber Ordinarius), that the "Directorium", or "Pye", and eventually also our own modern "Ordo recitandi" were in due time evolved. These distinctions are not clear-cut. The process was a gradual one. But we may distinguish in the English and also in the Continental Ordinals two different stages. We have, first, the type of book in common use from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, and represented by the "Sarum Ordinal" edited by W. H. Frere, or the "Ordinaria of Laon" edited by Chevalier. Here we have a great deal of miscellaneous information respecting feasts, the Office and Mass to be said upon them according to the changes necessitated by the occurrence of Easter and the shifting of the Sundays, as well as the "Incipits" of the details of the service, e. g. of the lessons to be read and the commemorations to be made. The second stage took the form of an adaptation of this Ordinal for ready use, an adaptation with which, in the case of Sarum, the name of Clement Maydeston is prominent connected. This was the "Directorium Sacerdotum" the complete "Pye" (known in Latin as Pica Sarum), abbreviated editions of which were afterwards published in a form which allowed it to be bound up with the respective portions of the Breviary. The idea of this great "Pye" was to give all the thirty-five possible combinations, five to each Dominical litter (q. v.), which the fixed and movable elements of the ecclesiastical year admitted of, assigning a separate calendar to each, more or less corresponding to our present "Ordo recitandi". This arrangement was not peculiar to England.

One of the earliest printed books of the kind was that issued about 1475 for the Diocese of Constance, of which a rubricated copy is to be found in the British Museum. It is a small folio in size, of one hundred and twelve leaves, and after the ordinary calendar it supplies summary rules, under thirty-five heads, for drawing up the special calendar for each year according to the Golden Number and the Dominical Letter. Then the Ordo for each of the thirty-five possible combinations is set out in detail. The name most commonly given to these "Pyes" on the Continent was "Ordinarius", more rarely "Directorium Missæ". For example, the title of such a book printed for the Diocese of Liège in 1492 runs: "In nomine Domini Amen . . . Incipit liber Ordinarius ostendens qualiter legatur et cantetur per totum anni circulum in ecclesia leodiensi tam de tempore quam de festis sanctorum in nocturnis officiis divinis." Such books were also provided for the religious orders. An "Ordinarius Ordinis Præmonstratensis" exists in manuscript at Jesus College, Cambridge, and an early printed one in the British Museum. When the use of printing became universal, the step from these rather copious directories, which served for all possible years, to a shorter guide of the type of our modern "Ordo recitandi", and intended only for one particular year, was a short and easy one. Since, however, such publications are useless after their purpose is once served, they are very liable to destruction, and it seems impossible to say how early we may date the first attempt at producing an Ordo after our modern fashion. The fact that at the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, De Reform., cap. xviii) it was thought necessary to urge that ecclesiastical students should be trained in the understanding of the computus, by which they could determine the ordo recitandi in each year for themselves, seems to imply that such Ordos as we now possess were not in familiar use in the middle of the sixteenth century.

MODERN DIRECTORIES

At the present day it may be said that in every part of the world not only is a printed Ordo provided for the clergy of every diocese and religious institute, but that almost everywhere some adaptation of this is available for the use of the laity. The earliest English attempt at anything of the sort seems to have been a little "Catholic Almanac", which appeared for three or four years in the reign of James II (see The Month, vol. CXI, 1908). But this was a mere calendar of feasts without any directions for the Office and Mass. In Ireland the work which at present appears under the title "The Irish Catholic Directory and Almanac for 1909, with a complete Directory in English" seems to have existed under various names since 1837 or earlier. It was first called "A Complete Catholic Directory", and then, in 1846, "Battersby's Registry", from the name of the publisher. For Scotland, though the Scottish missions are included in the "Catholic Directory" published in London, there is also a separate "Catholic Directory for the Clergy and Laity of Scotland" which began under a slightly different name in 1868. Catholic Directories also exist for the Australian and Canadian provinces, and occasionally for separate dioceses, e. g. the Diocese of Birmingham, England, possesses an "Official Directory" of its own. Attention may briefly be called, also, to two Roman handbooks of a character somewhat analogous to our Directories, which supply names and details regarding the Catholic hierarchy throughout the world and especially regarding the cardinals, the Roman Congregations and their personnel, the prelates and camerieri, etc., in attendance upon the papal court. The first of these, called since 1872 "La Gerarchia Cattolica e la Famiglia Pontificia", was first published in 1716 and was long familiarly known as "Cracas" from the name of the publisher. Officially, the early numbers were simply called "Notizie per l'Anno 1716, etc." (see Moroni, Dizionario, XX, 26 sqq.). The other work, which is very similar in character, but somewhat more ample in its information, has appeared since 1898 under the title "Annuario Ecclesiastico". Finally we notice the existence of the "Directorium Chori", a work originally compiled by Guidetti in 1582, possessing a quasi-official character and often reprinted since. It is intended for the use of the hebdomadarius and cantors in collegiate churches, and is quite different in character from the works considered above.

THE UNITED STATES

These publications begin in the United States with an "Ordo Divini Officii Recitandi", published at Baltimore, in 1801, by John Hayes. It had none of the directory or almanac features. "The Catholic Laity's Directory to the Church Service with an Almanac for the year", an imitation of the English enterprise, was the next, in 1817. It was published in New York with the "permission of the Right Rev. Bishop Connolly" by Mathew Field, who was born in England of an Irish Catholic family and left there for New York in 1815. He died at Baltimore, 1832. His son, Joseph M. Field, was six years old when he arrived in New York, and became a prolific and brilliant writer, dying at Mobile in 1856. Joseph's daughter, Kate Field, was later the well-known author and lecturer. Though both were baptized, neither was a professed Catholic. This Field production, in addition to the ordinary almanac calendars, had a variety of pious and instructive reading-matter with an account of the churches, colleges, seminaries, and institutions of the United States. It made up a small 32mo book of sixty-eight pages. Among other things, it promised the preparation of a Catholic magazine which, however, was never started. Only one issue of this almanac was made. The next effort in the same direction, and on practically the same lines, was also at New York, in 1822, by W. H. Creagh. It was edited by the Rev. Dr. John Power, rector of St. Peter's church, and says in the preface that it was "intended to accompany the Missal with a view to facilitate the use of the same". The contents include "Brief Account of the Establishment of the Episcopacy in the United States"; "Present Status of religion in the respective Dioceses"; "A short account of the present State of the Society of Jesus in the U. S.", and obituaries of priests who had died from 1814 to 1821. This was the only number of this almanac.

In 1834 Fielding Lucas of Baltimore took up the idea and brought out "The Metropolitan Catholic Calendar and Laity's Directory" for that year, to be published annually. He said in it that he had "intended to present it in 1832 but from circumstances over which he had no control it has been delayed to the present period". It prints a list of the hierarchy and the priests of the several dioceses, with their stations. In this publication and its various successors the title Directory is used in its purely secular meaning, as the issues include no ecclesiastical calendar or Ordo. James Meyers "at the Cathedral" is the publisher of the subsequent volumes until 1838, when Fielding Lucas, Jr., took hold and changed the name "U. S. Catholic Almanac", that Meyers had given it, back to "Metropolitan Catholic Almanac". In the issue of 1845 there is inserted a map of the United States, "prepared at much expense to exhibit at a glance the extent and relative situation of the different dioceses", with a table of comparative statistics, 1835 to 1845. A list of the clergy in England and Ireland was added in the volume for 1850. "Lucas Brothers" is the imprint on the almanac for 1856-57, and the Baltimore publication then ceased, to be taken up in 1858 by Edward Dunigan and Brother of New York, as "Dunigan's American Catholic Almanac and List of the Clergy". All general reading-matter was omitted in this almanac, publication of which was stopped the following year when John Murphy and Co. of Baltimore resumed there the compilation of the "Metropolitan Catholic Almanac". Owing to the Civil War no almanacs were printed during 1862 or 1863. In 1864 D. and J. Sadlier of New York started "Sadlier's Catholic Directory, Almanac and Ordo", which John Gilmary Shea compiled and edited for them. It made a volume of more than 600 pages and gave lists of the clergy in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, and Australasia, with diocesan statistics. This publication continued alone in the field until 1886, when Hoffman Brothers, a German firm of publishers of Milwaukee, brought out "Hoffman's Catholic Directory", which the Rev. James Fagan, a Milwaukee priest, compiled for them. In contents it was similar to the New York publication. This directory continued until 1896, when the Hoffman Company failed, and their plant was purchased by the Wiltzius Company, which has since continued the directory. The Sadlier "Directory" ceased publication in 1895.

The Wiltzius "Catholic Directory, Almanac and Clergy List" has reports for all dioceses in the United States, Canada, Alaska, Cuba, Sandwich Islands, Porto Rico, Philippine Islands, Newfoundland, England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, together with statistics of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Belgium, Costa Rica, Guatemala, British Honduras, Nicaragua, San Salvador, German Empire, Japan, Luxemburg, The United States of Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Oceanica, South Africa, The United States of Brazil, Curaçao, Dutch Guiana, Switzerland, and the West Indies. It contains also an alphabetical list of all clergymen in the United States and Canada, as well as a map of the ecclesiastical provinces in the United States. It gives a list of English-speaking confessors abroad, American colleges in Europe, and the leading Catholic societies; statistics of the Catholic Indian and Negro missions, and a list of Catholic papers and periodicals in the United States and Canada.

In the almanac for 1837 it is noted, concerning the statistics, that "the numbers marked with an asterisk are not given as strictly exact, though it is believed they approximate to the truth, and are as accurate as could be ascertained from the statements forwarded to the editor from the several dioceses". On the same topic "Hoffman's Directory" for 1890 says: "It is much to be regretted that the statistics are not more carefully kept. In every diocese there are parishes that fail to report and many dioceses report statistics only partially, so that any general summary that can be made up at best is only an approximation." Dealing with this long-standing and well-founded complaint of inaccurate Catholic statistics, the archbishops of the United States, at their annual conference in 1907, resolved to co-operate with the United States Census Bureau in an effort to collect correct figures. Archbishop Glennon of St. Louis was appointed a special census official by the Government for this purpose, and under his direction an enumeration of the Catholics of every parish in the United States was made. The figures thus obtained were used in the "Directory" for 1909. It is the first, therefore, of these publications giving statistics of population on which any reliance can be placed in respect to accuracy of detail.

CANADA

In 1886 "Le Canada Ecclésiastique, Almanach Annuaire du clergé Canadien", printed in French. was begun in Montreal. The contents are similar to those of the directories in English. Recent issues have a number of illustrations of local and historical interest, such as a series of portraits of the Bishops of Quebec in the issue for 1908, in commemoration of the centenary celebrations. The Rev. Charles P. Beaubien edited the publication.

See SCHROD in Kirchenlexikon, s. v. Directorium. For the Pye and Ordinal see especially FRERE, The Use of Sarum (Cambridge. 1901), II, Introduction; WORDSWORTH, The Directorium Sacerdotum of Clement Maydeston (Henry Bradshaw Society, London, 1902), especially the Appendixes to vol. II; and also, in the same series, The Tracts of Clement Maydeston (London, 1894); CHEVALIER, Bibliothèque liturgique (Paris, 1897-), in which series the editor has printed the Ordinaria of Laon, Reims, Bayeux, etc. On English directories, see THURSTON, An Old-Established Periodical in The Month (London, Feb., 1882).

Files of these various publications; FINOTTI, Bibliographia Catholica Americana (New York, 1872).

HERBERT THURSTON. THOMAS F. MEEHAN.

Discalced

(Lat. dis, without, and calceus, shoe).

A term applied to those religious congregations of men and women, the members of which go entirely unshod or wear sandals, with or without other covering for the feet. These congregations are often distinguished of this account from other branches of the same order. The custom of going unshod was introduced into the West by St. Francis of Assissi for men and St. Clare for women. After the various modificiations of the Rule of St. Francis, the Observantines adhered to the primitative custom of going unshod, and in this they were followed by the Minims and Capuchins. The Discalced Franciscans or Alcantarines, who prior to 1897 formed a distinct branch of the Franciscan Order went without footwear of any kind. The followers of St. Clare at first went barefoot, but later came to wear sandals and even shoes. The Colettines and Capuchin Sisters returned to the use of sandals. Sandals were also adopted by the Camaldolese monks of the Congregation of Monte Corona (1522), the Maronite Catholic monks, the Poor Hermits of St. Jerome of the Congregation of Bl. Peter of Pisa, the Augustinians of Thomas of Jesus (1532), the Barefooted Servites (1593), the Discalced Carmelites (1568), the Feuillants (Cistercians, 1575), Trinitarians (1594), Mercedarians (1604), and the Passionists. (See FRIARS MINOR)

STEPHEN M. DONOVAN

Discernment of Spirits

All moral conduct may be summed up in the rule: avoid evil and do good. In the language of Christian asceticism, spirits, in the broad sense, is the term applied to certain complex influences, capable of impelling the will, the ones toward good, the others toward evil; we have the wordly spirit of error, the spirit of race, the spirit of Christianity, etc. However, in the restricted sense, spirits indicate the various spiritual agents which, by their suggestions and movements, may influence the moral value of our acts.

Here we shall speak only of this second kind. They are reduced to four, including, in a certain way, the human soul itself, because in consequence of the original Fall, its lower faculties are at variance with its superior powers. Concupiscence, that is to say, disturbances of the imagination and errors of sensibility, thwart or pervert the operations of the intellect and will, by deterring the one from the true and the other from the good (Gen., viii, 21; James, i, 14). In opposition to our vitiated nature, or so to speak, to the flesh which drags us into sin, the Spirit of God acts within us by grace, a supernatural help given to our intellect and will to lead us back to good and to the observance of the moral law (Rom., vii, 22-25). Besides these two spirits, the human and the Divine, in the actual order of Providence, two others must be observed. The Creator willed that there should be communication between angels and men, and as the angels are of two kinds, good and bad, the latter try to win us over to their rebellion and the former endeavour to make us their companions in obedience. Hence four spirits lay siege to our liberty: the angelic and the Divine seeking its good, and the human (in the sense heretofore mentioned) and the diabolical its misery. In ordinary language they may, for brevity sake, be called simply the good and the evil spirit.

"Discernment of spirits" is the term given to the judgment whereby to determine from what spirit the impulses of the soul emanate, and it is easy to understand the importance of this judgment both for self-direction and the direction of others. Now this judgment may be formed in two ways. In the first case the discernment is made by means of an intuitive light which infallibly discovers the quality of the movement; it is then a gift of God, a grace gratis data, vouchsafed mainly for the benefit of our neighbour (I Cor., xii, 10). This charisma or gift was granted in the early Church and in the course of the lives of the saints as, for example, St. Philip Neri. Second, discernment of spirits may be obtained through study and reflection. It is then an acquired human knowledge, more or less perfect, but very useful in the direction of souls. It is procured, always, of course, with the assistance of grace, by the reading of the Holy Bible, of works on theology and asceticism, of autobiographies, and the correspondence of the most distinguished ascetics. The necessity of self-direction and of directing others, when one had charge of souls, produced documents, preserved in spiritual libraries, from the perusal of which one may see that the discernment of spirits is a science that has always flourished in the Church. In addition to the special treatises enumerated in the bibliography the following documents may be cited for the history of the subject:

• the "Shepherd of Hermas" (1, II, Mand. VI, c. 2);
• St. Anthony's discourse to the monks of Egypt, in his life by St. Anthanasius;
• the "De perfectione spirituali" (ch. 30-33) by Marcus Diadochus;
• the "Confessions" of St. Augustine;
• St. Bernard's XXIII sermon, "De discretione spirituum";
• Gerson's treatise, "De diversis diaboli tentationibus";
• St. Theresa's autobiography and "Castle of the Soul";
• St. Francis de Sales' letters of direction, etc.

An excellent lesson is that given by St. Ignatius Loyola in his "Spiritual Exercises". Here we find rules for the discernment of spirits and, being clearly and briefly formulated, these rules indicate a secure course, containing in embryo all that is included in the more extensive treatises of later date. For a complete explanation of them the best commentaries on the "Exercises" of St. Ignatius may be consulted. Of the rules transmitted to us by a saint inspired by Divine light and a learned psychologist taught by personal experience, it will suffice to recall the principal ones. Ignatius gives two kinds and we must call attention to the fact that in the second category, according to some opinions, he sometimes considers a more delicate discernment of spirits adapted to the extraordinary course of mysticism. Be that as it may, he begins by enunciating this clear principle, that both the good and the evil spirit act upon a soul according to the attitude it assumes toward them. If it pose as their friend, they flatter it; if to resist them, they torment it. But the evil spirit speaks only to the imagination and the senses, whereas the good spirit acts upon reason and conscience. The evil labours to excite concupiscence, the good to intensify love for God. Of course it may happen that a perfectly well-disposed soul suffers from the attacks of the devil deprived of the sustaining consolations of the good angel; but this is only a temporary trial the passing of which must be awaited in patience and humility. St. Ignatius also teaches us to distinguish the spirits by their mode of action and by the end they seek. Without any preceding cause, that is to say, suddenly, without previous knowledge or sentiment, God alone, by virtue of His sovereign dominion, can flood the soul with light and joy. But if there has been a preceding cause, either the good or the bad angel may be the author of the consolation; this remains to be judged from the consequences. As the good angel's object is the welfare of the soul and the bad angel's its defects or unhappiness, if, in the progress of our thoughts all is well and tends to good there is no occasion for uneasiness; on the contrary, if we perceive any deviation whatsoever towards evil or even a slight unpleasant agitation, there is reason to fear. Such, then, is the substance of these brief rules which are nevertheless so greatly admired by the masters of the spiritual life. Although requiring an authorized explanation, when well understood, they act as a preservative against many illusions.

PAUL DEBUCHY

Disciple

This term is commonly applied to one who is learning any art or science from one distinguished by his accomplishments. Though derived from the Latin discipulus, the English name conveys a meaning somewhat narrower than its Latin equivalent: disciple is opposed to master, as scholar to teacher, whilst both disciple and scholar are included under the Latin discipulus. In the English versions of the Old Testament the word disciple occurs only once (Is., viii, 16); but the idea it conveys is to be met with in several other passages, as, for instance, when the Sacred Writer speaks of the "sons" of the Prophets (IV K., ii, 7); the same seems, likewise, to be the meaning of the terms children and son in the Sapiential books (e.g. Prov., iv, 1, 10; etc.). Much more frequently does the New Testament use the word disciple in the sense of pupil, adherent, one who continues in the Master's word (John viii, 31). So we read disciples of Moses (John, ix, 28), of the Pharisees (Matt., xxii, 16; Mark, ii, 18; Luke, v, 33). of John the Baptist (Matt., ix, 14; Luke, vii, 18; John, iii, 25). These, however, are only incidental applications, for the word is almost exclusively used of the Disciples of Jesus.

In the Four Gospels it is most especially applied to the Apostles, sometimes styled the "twelve disciples" (Matt., x, 1; xi, 1; xx, 17; xxvi, 20; the sixteenth verse of chapter xxviii, having reference to events subsequent to Christ's Passion, mentions only the "eleven disciples"), sometimes merely called "the disciples" (Matt., xiv, 19; xv, 33, 36; etc.). The expression "his disciples" frequently has the same import. Occasionally the Evangelists give the word a broader sense and make it a synonym for believer (Matt., x, 42; xxvii, 57; John, iv, 1; ix, 27, 28; etc.). Besides the signification of "Apostle" and that of "believer" there is finally a third one, found in St. Luke, and perhaps also in the other Evangelists. St. Luke narrates (vi, 13) that Jesus "called unto him his disciples, and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles)". The disciples, in this disciples, in this context, are not the crowds of believers who flocked around Christ, but a smaller body of His followers. They are commonly identified with the seventy-two (seventy, according to the received Greek text, although several Greek manuscripts mention seventy-two, as does the Vulgate) referred to (Luke, x, 1) as having been chosen by Jesus. The names of these disciples are given in several lists (Chronicon Paschale, and Pseudo-Dorotheus in Migne, P.G., XCII, 521-524; 543-545; 1061-1065); but these lists are unfortunately worthless. Eusebius positively asserts that no such roll existed in his time, and mentions among the disciples only Barnabas, Sosthenes, Cephas, Matthias, Thaddeus and James "the Lord's brother" (His. Eccl., I, xii). In the Acts of the Apostles the name disciple is exclusively used to designate the converts, the believers, both men and women (vi, 1, 2, 7; ix, 1, 10, 19; etc.; in reference to the latter connotation see in particular ix, 36) even such as were only imperfectly instructed, like those found by St. Paul at Ephesus (Acts, xix, 1-5).

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

Disciples of Christ

A sect founded in the United States of America by Alexander Campbell. Although the largest portion of his life and prodigious activity was spent in the United States, Alexander Campbell was born, 12 September, 1788, in the County Antrim, Ireland. On his father's side he was of Scottish extraction; his mother, Jane Corneigle, was of Huguenot descent. Both parents are reported to have been persons of deep piety and high literary culture. His father, after serving as minister to the Anti-Burgher Church in Ahorey and director of a prosperous academy at Richhill, emigrated to the United States and engaged in the oft-attempted and ever futile effort "to unite All Christians as one communion on a purely scriptural basis", the hallucination of so many noble minds, the only outcome of which must always be against the will of the Founder, to increase the discord of Christendom by the creation of a new sect. In 1808 Alexander embarked with the family to join his father, but was shipwrecked on the Scottish coast and took the opportunity to prepare himself for the ministry at the University of Glasgow. In 1809 he migrated to the United States, and found in Washington County, Pennsylvania, the nucleus of the new movement in the "Christian Association of Washington", under the auspices of which was issued a "Declaration and Address", setting forth the objects of the association. It was proposed "to establish no new sect, but to persuade Christian to abandon party names and creeds, sectarian usages and denominational strifes, and associate in Christian fellowship, in the common faith in a divine Lord, with no other terms of religious communion than faith in and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ".

An independent church was formed at Brush Run on the principles of the association, and, 1 January, 1812, Alexander was "ordained". His earnestness is attested by the record of one hundred and six sermons preached in one year; but he wrecked every prospect of success by finding in his reading of the Scriptures the invalidity of infant baptism, and the necessity of baptism by immersion, thus excluding from the Christian discipleship the vast majority of believing Christians. On 12 June, 1812, with his wife, father, mother, and three others, Alexander was rebaptized by immersion. Nothing was left him now but to seek association with one or other of the numerous Baptist sects. This he did, but with the proviso that he should be allowed to preach and teach whatever he learned from the Holy Scriptures. The Baptists never took him cordially; and in 1817, after five years of herculean labours, his followers, whom he wished to be known by the appellation of "Disciples of Christ", but who were generally styled "Campbellites", numbered only one hundred and fifty persons. Campbell's mission as a messenger of peace was a failure; as time went on he developed a polemical nature, and became a sharp critic in speech and in writing of the weaknesses and vagaries of the Protestant sects. Only once did he come in direct contact with the Catholics, on the occasion of his five days' debate, in 1837, with Archbishop Purcell of Cincinnati, which excited great interest at the time but is now forgotten. His sixty volumes are of no interest. Campbell was twice married and was the father of twelve children. He died at Bethany, West Virginia, where he had established a seminary, 4 March, 1866.

According to their census prepared in 1906 the sect then had 6475 ministers, 11,633 churches, and a membership of 1,235,294. It is strongest in the West and Southwest, Missouri, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, and Ohio having the largest bodies. J.H. Garrison, editor of their organ "The Christian Evangelist", outlined (1906) the belief of his sect.

• According to their investigations of the New Testament the confession of faith made by Simon Peter, on which Jesus declared he would build His Church, namely "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God", was the creed of Christianity and the essential faith, and that all those who would make this confession from the heart, being penitent of their past sins, were to be admitted by baptism into the membership of the early Church;
• that baptism in the early Church consisted of a burial of a penitent believer in the water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and that only such were fit subjects for baptism;
• that the form of church government was congregational;
• that each congregation had its deacons and elders or bishops, the former to look after the temporal and the latter the spiritual interests of the church.
• They practise weekly communion and consider it not as a sacrament but as a memorial feast.
• While they hold both New and Old Testaments to be equally inspired, both are not equally binding upon Christians.
• Accepting the Bible as an all-sufficient revelation of the Divine will, they repudiate all authoritative creeds and human grounds of fellowship.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN

Ecclesiastical Discipline

Etymologically the word discipline signifies the formation of one who places himself at school and under the direction of a master. All Christians are the disciples of Christ, desirous to form themselves at His school and to be guided by His teachings and precepts. He called Himself, and we, too, call Him, Our Master. Such, then, is evangelical discipline. However, in ecclesiastical language the word discipline has been invested with various meanings, which must here be enumerated and specified.

I. MEANING OF DISCIPLINE

All discipline may be considered first in its author, then in its subject, and finally in itself. In its author it is chiefly the method employed for the formation and adaptation of the precepts and directions to the end to be attained, which is the perfect conduct of subjects; in this sense discipline is said to be severe or mild. In those who receive it discipline is the more or less perfect conformity of acts to the directions and formation received; it is in this sense that discipline may be said to flourish in a monastery. Or, again, it is the obligation of subjects to conform their acts to precepts and directions, and is thus defined by Cardinal Cavagnis: Praxis factorum fidei consona — "conduct conforming itself to faith" (Inst. jur. publ. eccl., Bk. IV, n. 147). More frequently, however, discipline is considered objectively, that is, as being the precepts and measures for the practical guidance of subjects. Thus understood ecclesiastical discipline is the aggregate of laws and directions given by the Church to the faithful for their conduct both private and public. This is discipline in its widest acceptation, and includes natural and Divine as well as positive laws, and faith, worship, and morals; in a word, all that affects the conduct of Christians. But if we eliminate laws merely formulated by the Church as the exponent of natural or Divine law, there remain the laws and directions laid down and formulated by ecclesiastical authority for the guidance of the faithful; this is the restricted and more usual acceptation of the word discipline. Nevertheless, it must be understood that this distinction, however justified, is not made for the purpose of separating ecclesiastical laws into two clearly divided categories in so far as practice is concerned; the Church does not always make known to what extent she speaks in the name of natural or of Divine law and with this corresponds the observance of laws by her subjects.

II. OBJECT OF DISCIPLINE

Since ecclesiastical discipline should direct every Christian life, its object must differ according to the obligations incumbent on each individual. The first duty of a Christian is to believe; hence dogmatic discipline, by which the Church proposes what we should believe and so regulates our conduct that it shall not fail to assist our faith. Dogmatic discipline springs from the power of magisterium, i. e. the teaching office, in the exercise of which power the Church can proceed only by declaration; therefore it is ecclesiastical discipline only in a broad sense. The second duty of Christians is to observe the Commandments, hence moral discipline (disciplina morum). Strictly understood the latter does not depend much more upon the Church than does dogmatic discipline, as the natural law is anterior and superior to ecclesiastical law; however, the Church authoritatively proposes to us the moral law, she specifies and perfects it; hence it is that we generally call moral discipline whatsoever directs the Christian in those acts that have a moral value, including the observance of positive laws, both ecclesiastical and secular. Among the chief duties of a Christian the worship of God must be assigned a place apart. The rules to be observed in this worship, especially public worship, constitute liturgical discipline. This cannot be said to depend absolutely upon the Church, as it derives the essential part of the Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments from Jesus Christ; however, for the greater part, liturgical discipline has been regulated by the Church and includes the rites of the Holy Sacrifice, the administration of the sacraments and of the sacramentals, and other ceremonies.

There still remain the obligations incumbent on the faithful considered individually, either on the members of different groups or classes of ecclesiastical society, or, finally, on those who are to any extent whatever depositaries of a portion of the authority. This is discipline properly so called, exterior discipline, established by the free legislation of the Church (not, of course, in a way absolutely independent of natural or Divine law, but outside of, yet akin to this law) for the good government of society and the sanctification of individuals. On individuals it imposes common precepts (the Commandments of the Church); then it states their mutual obligations, in conjugal society by matrimonial discipline, in larger societies by determining relations with ecclesiastical superiors, parish priests, bishops, etc. Special classes also have their own particular discipline, there being clerical discipline for the clergy and religious or monastic discipline for the religious. The government of Christian society is in the hands of prelates and superiors who are subject to a special discipline either for the conditions of their recruitment, for the determining of their privileges and duties, or for the manner in which they should fulfil their functions. We may include here the rules for the administration of temporal goods. Finally, any authority from which emanate orders or prohibitions should have power to ratify the same by penal measures applicable to all transgressors; hence, another object of discipline is the imposing and inflicting of disciplinary sanctions. It must be noted, however, that the object of these measures is to ensure observance or to chastise infractions of the natural and Divine as well as of ecclesiastical laws.

III. DISCIPLINARY POWER OF THE CHURCH

It is evident, therefore, that the disciplinary power of the Church is a phase, a practical application, of its power of jurisdiction, and includes the various forms of the latter, namely, legislative, administrative, judicial, and coercive power. As for the power of order (potestas ordinis), it is the basis of liturgical discipline by which its exercise is regulated. For the proof that the Church is a society and that, as such, it necessarily has the power of jurisdiction which it derives from Divine institution through the Apostolic succession, see CHURCH. Disciplinary power is proved by the very fact of its exercise; it is an organic necessity in every society whose members it guides to their end by providing them with rules of action. Historically it can be shown that a disciplinary power has been exercised by the Church uninterruptedly, first by the Apostles and then by their successors. The Apostles in the first council at Jerusalem formulated rules for the conduct of the faithful (Acts, xv). St. Paul gave moral advice to the Christians of Corinth on virginity, marriage, and the agape (I Cor., vii, xi). The Pastoral Epistles of St. Paul are a veritable code of clerical discipline. The Church, moreover, has never ceased to represent herself as charged by Christ with the guidance of mankind in the way of eternal salvation. The Council of Trent expressly affirms the disciplinary power of the Church in all that concerns liturgical discipline and Divine worship (Sess. XXI, c. ii): "In the administration of the sacraments, the substance of the latter remaining intact, the Church has always had power to establish or to modify whatever she considered most expedient for the utility of those who receive them, or best calculated to ensure respect for the sacraments themselves according to the various circumstances of time and place." In fact, we need only to recall the numerous laws enacted by the Church in the course of centuries for the maintenance, development, or restoration of the moral and spiritual life of Christians.

IV. MUTABILITY OF DISCIPLINE

That ecclesiastical discipline should be subject to change is natural since it was made for men and by men. To claim that it is immutable would render the attainment of its end utterly impossible, since, in order to form and direct Christians, it must adapt itself to the variable circumstances of time and place, conditions of life, customs of peoples and races, being, in a certain sense, like St. Paul, all things to all men. Nevertheless, neither the actual changes nor the possibility of further alteration must be exaggerated. There is no change in those disciplinary measures through which the Church sets before the faithful and confirms the natural and the Divine law, nor in those strictly disciplinary regulations that are closely related to the natural or Divine law. Other disciplinary rules may and must be modified in proportion as they seem less efficacious for the social or individual welfare. Thomassin aptly says [Vetus et nova Ecclesiæ disciplina (ed. Lyons, 1706), preface, n. xvii]: "Whoever has the least idea of ecclesiastical laws, those that concern government as well as those that regulate morals, knows well that they are of two kinds. Some represent immutable rules of eternal truth, itself the fundamental law, the source and origin of these laws, from the observance of which there is no dispensation, against which no prescription obtains, and which are not modified either by diversity of custom or vicissitudes of time. Other ecclesiastical rules and customs are by nature temporary, indifferent in themselves, more or less authoritative, useful, or necessary according to circumstances of time and place, having been established only to facilitate the observance of the fundamental and eternal law." As to the variations of discipline concerning these secondary laws, the same author describes them in these terms (loc. cit., n. xv): "While the Faith of the Church remains the same in all ages, it is not so with her discipline. This changes with time, grows old with the years, is rejuvenated, is subject to growth and decay. Though in its early days admirably vigorous, with time defects crept in. Later it overcame these defects and although along some lines its usefulness increased, in other ways its first splendour waned. That in its old age it languishes is evident from the leniency and indulgence which now seem absolutely necessary. However, all things fairly considered, it will appear that old age and youth have each their defects and good qualities." Were it necessary to exemplify the mutability of ecclesiastical discipline it would be perplexing indeed to make a choice. The ancient catechumenate exists only in a few rites; the Latin Church no longer gives Communion to the laity under two kinds; the discipline relating to penance and indulgences has undergone a profound evolution; matrimonial law is still subject to modifications; fasting is not what it formerly was; the use of censures in penal law is but the shadow of what it was in the Middle Ages. Many other examples will easily occur to the mind of the well-informed reader.

V. DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY

What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility? It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching. It is quite permissible, however, to inquire how far this infallibility extends, and to what extent, in her disciplinary activity, the Church makes use of the privilege of inerrancy granted her by Jesus Christ when she defines matters of faith and morals. Infallibility is directly related to the teaching office (magisterium), and although this office and the disciplinary power reside in the same ecclesiastical authorities, the disciplinary power does not necessarily depend directly on the teaching office. Teaching pertains to the order of truth; legislation to that of justice and prudence. Doubtless, in last analysis all ecclesiastical laws are based on certain fundamental truths, but as laws their purpose is neither to confirm nor to condemn these truths. It does not seem, therefore, that the Church needs any special privilege of infallibility to prevent her from enacting laws contradictory of her doctrine. To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform.

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law; the most remarkable instance of this being the suppression of the chalice in the Communion of the laity. This has often been violently attacked as contrary to the Gospel. Concerning it the Council of Constance (1415) declared (Sess. XIII): "The claim that it is sacrilegious or illicit to observe this custom or law [Communion under one kind] must be regarded as erroneous, and those who obstinately affirm it must be cast aside as heretics." The opinion, generally admitted by theologians, that the Church is infallible in her approbation of religious orders, must be interpreted in the same sense; it means that in her regulation of a manner of life destined to provide for the practice of the evangelical counsels she cannot come into conflict with these counsels as received from Christ together with the rest of the Gospel revelation. (See ROMAN CONGREGATIONS.)

THOMASSIN, Vetua et nova Ecclesiœ disciplina (ed. Lyons, 1706), preface; JEILER in Kirchenlex., s. v. Disciplin; all treatises on public ecclesiastical law, especially that by CAVAGNIS, Inst. jur. publ. eccl. (Rome, 1906), I. III, ch. ii; the treatise de Ecclesiâ in theological works, especially in HURTER, Theol. dogm. comp. (Innsbruck, 1878), I, thesis xlvi, and WILMERS, De Christi Ecclesiâ (Ratishon, 1897), 469 sq.

A. BOUDINHON.

Discipline of the Secret

(Latin Disciplina Arcani; German Arcandisciplin).

A theological term used to express the custom which prevailed in the earliest ages of the Church, by which the knowledge of the more intimate mysteries of the Christian religion was carefully kept from the heathen and even from those who were undergoing instruction in the Faith. The custom itself is beyond dispute, but the name for it is comparatively modern, and does not appear to have been used before the controversies of the seventeenth century, when special dissertations bearing the title "De disciplinâ arcani" were published both on the Protestant and the Catholic side.

The origin of the custom must be looked for in the recorded words of Christ: "Give not that which holy to dogs; neither cast your pearls before swine; lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you" (Matt., vii, 6), while the practice in Apostolic times is sufficiently vouched for by St. Paul's assurance that he fed the Corinthians "as . . . little ones in Christ", giving them "milk to drink, not meat", because they were not yet able to bear it (I Cor., iii, 1-2). With this passage we may compare also Heb., v. 12-14, where the same illustration is used, and it is declared that "solid food is for the perfect; for them who by custom have their senses exercised to the discerning of good and evil." Although the origin of the custom is thus to be traced back to the very beginnings of Christianity, it does not appear to have been so general, or to have been carried out with so much strictness in the earlier centuries as it was immediately after the persecutions had ceased. This may be due in part to the absence of detailed information with regard to the earlier period, but it is probable enough that the discipline was growing more strict all through the second and third centuries on account of the pressure of persecution, and that, when persecution was at last relaxed, the need for reserve was felt at first, while the Church was still surrounded by hostile Paganism, to be increased rather than diminished. After the fifth or sixth century, when Christianity was thoroughly established and secure, the need of such a discipline was no longer felt, and it passed rapidly away. The practice of reserve (oikonomia) was exercised mainly in two directions, in dealing with catechumens, and with the heathen. It will be convenient to treat of these separately, as the reasons for the practice, and the mode in which it was carried out, differ somewhat in the two cases.

(1) Catechumens

It was desirable to bring learners slowly and by degrees to a full knowledge of the Faith. A convert from heathenism could not profitably assimilate the whole Catholic religion at once, but must be taught gradually. It would be necessary for him to learn first the great truth of the unity of God, and not until this had sunk deep into his heart could he safely be instructed concerning the Blessed Trinity. Otherwise tritheism would have been the inevitable result. So again, in times of persecution, it was necessary to be very careful about those who offered themselves for instruction, and who might be spies wishing to be instructed only that they might betray. The doctrines to which the reserve was more especially applied were those of the Holy Trinity and the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. The Lord's Prayer, too, was jealously guarded from the knowledge of all who were not fully instructed. With regard to the Holy Eucharist and the Lord's Prayer some relics of the practice still survive in the Church. The Mass of Catechumens, that earlier portion of the Eucharistic service to which learners and neophytes were admitted, and which consisted of prayers or readings from Holy Scripture and sometimes included a sermon, is still quite distinguishable, though the custom no longer survives in the Western Liturgy, as it does in the Eastern, of formally bidding the uninitiated to depart when the more solemn part of the service is about to begin. So also the custom of saying the Lord's Prayer in silence in all public services, except the latter part of the Mass, when catechumens would according to the ancient use no longer have been present, owes its origin to this discipline.

The earliest formal witness for the custom seems to be Tertullian (Apol. vii): Omnibus mysteriis silentii fides adhibetur. Again, speaking of heretics, he complains bitterly that their discipline is lax in this respect, and that evil results have followed: "Among them it is doubtful who is a catechumen and who a believer; all can come in alike; they hear side by side and pray together; even heathens, if any chance to come in. That which is holy they cast to the dogs, and their pearls, although they are not real ones, they fling to the swine" (Praescr. adv. Haer., xii). Other passages from the Fathers which may be cited are St. Basil (De Spir. Sanct., xxvii): "These things must not be told to the uninitiated"; St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oratio xi, in s. bapt.) where he speaks of a difference of knowledge between those who are without and those who are within, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem whose "Catechetical Discourses" are entirely built upon this principle, and who in his first discourse cautions his hearers not to tell what they have heard. "Should a catechumen ask what the teachers have said, tell nothing to a stranger; for we deliver to thee a mystery . . . see thou let out nothing, not that what is said is not worth telling, but because the ear that hears does not deserve to receive it. Thou thyself wast once a catechumen, and then I told thee not what was coming. When thou hast come to experience the hieght of what is taught thee, thou wilt know that the catechumens are not worthy to hear them" (Cat., Lect. i, 12). St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom in like manner stop short in their public addresses, and, after a more or less veiled reference to the mysteries, continue with: "The initiated will understand what I mean".

The Lord's Prayer was in St. Augustine's time taught eight days before baptism (Hom. xlii; cf. "Enchir.", lxxi, and the "Apostolic Constitutions", VII, xliv; St. Chrys. Hom. cc, al. xix, in Matt.). The Creed in like manner was taught just before baptism. So St. Ambrose, writing to his sister Marcellina (Epist xx, Benedict, ed.) says that on Sunday, after the catechumens had been dismissed, he was teaching the Creed in the baptistery of the basilica to those who were sufficiently advanced. (Cf. aslo St. Jerome, Epist. xxxciii, ad. Pammach.) More detailed teaching about the Holy Trinity and about the other sacraments was only given after baptism. Other passages which may be consulted are: Chrys., "Hom. in Matt.", xxiii, "Hom. xviii, in II Cor."; Pseud. Augustine, "Serm. ad Neoph.", i; St. Ambrose, "De his qui mysteriis initiantur"; Gaudentius, "Ser. ii ad Neoph."; Apost. Constit., III, v, and VIII, xi. The rule of reticence applied to all the sacraments, and no catechumen was ever allowed to be present at their celebration. St. Basil (De Spir. S. ad Amphilochium, xxvii) speaking of the sacraments says: "One must not circulate in writing the doctrine of mysteries which none but the initiated are allowed to see." For baptism reference may be made to Theodoret (Epitom. Decret., xcviii), St. Cyril of Alexandria (Contr. Julian., i), and St. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. xl, de bapt.).

The discipline with respect to the Holy Eucharist of course requires no proof. It is in involved in the very name of the Missa Catechumenorum, and one can scarcely turn to any passage of the Fathers which deals with the subject in which the reticence to be observed is not expressly stated. Confirmation was never spoken of openly. St. Basil, in the treatise already spoken of (De Spir. S., xxv, 11), says that no one has ever ventured to speak openly in writing of the holy oil of unction, and Innocent I, writing to the Bishop of Gubbio on the sacramental "form" of the ordinance answers: "I dare not speak the words, but I should seem rather to betray a trust than to respond to a request for information" (Epist. i, 3). Holy orders in the same way were never given publicly. The Council of Laodicea forbade it definitely in its speaking of the practice of begging the prayers of the faithful for those who are to be ordained, says that those who understand co-operate with and assent to what is done. "For it is not lawful to reveal everything to those who are yet uninitiated." So also St. Augustine (Tract xi. in Joann.): "If you say to a catechumen, Dost thou believe in Christ? he will answer, I do, and will sign himself with the Cross . . . Let us ask him, Dost thou eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink the Blook of the Son of Man? He will not know what we mean, for Jesus has not trusted himself to him."

(2) The Heathen

The evidence for the reserve of Christian writers when dealing with religious questions in books which might be accessible to the heathen is, naturally, to a large extent of a negative character, and therefore difficult to produce. Theodoret (Quaest. xv in Num.) lays down the general principle in terms which are quote clear and unmistakable: "We speak in obscure terms concerning the Divine Mysteries, on account of the uninitiated, but when they have withdrawn we teach the initiated plainly." That passage alone would suffice to refute the allegation not unfrequently made that the Discipline of the Secret was a confinement of the knowledge introduced in imitation of the heathen "mysteries". On the contrary all Christians were taught the whole truth, there was no esoteric doctrine, but they were brought to full knowledge slowly, and precautions were taken, as was very necessary, to prevent heathens from learning anything of which they might make an evil use. A very striking example of the way in which the discipline worked may be found in the writings of St. Chrysostom. He writes to Pope Innocent I to say that in the course of a disturbance at Constantinople an act of irreverence had been committed, and "the blood of Christ had been spilt upon the ground." In a letter to the pope there was no reason for not speaking plainly. But Palladius, his biographer, speaking of the same incident in a book for general reading, says only, "They overturned the symbols" (Chrys. ad Inn., i, 3 in P.G., LII, 534; cf. Döllinger, "Lehre der Eucharistie", 15). It is, no doubt, on this account that almost all the early apologists, as Minucius Felix Athenagoras, Arnobius, Tatian, and Theophilus, are absolutely silent on the Holy Eucharist. Justin Martyr and to a less degree Tertullian are more outspoken; the frankness of the former has been unduly urged to prove the non-existence of this institution in the first half of the second century. So again, as Cardinal Newman has observed (Development, 87), both Minucius Felix and Arnobius in controversy with heathens deny absolutely that Christians used altars in their churches. The obvious meaning was that they did not use altars in the heathen sense, and they must not be taken as denying the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that, in a Christian sense, "we have an altar".

The controversial importance of this subject in more recent times is, of course, obvious. The Catholics answered the accusation of Protestant writers, that their special doctrines could not be found in the writings of the early Fathers, by showing the existence of this practice of reserve. If it was forbidden to speak or write publicly of these doctrines, silence was completely accounted for. So again, if here and there in early writings terms were used which seemed to countenance Protestant teaching -- as for instance by speaking of the Holy Eucharist as symbols -- it became necessary always to examine whether these terms were not used intentionally to conceal the true doctrine from the uninitiated, and whether the same writers did not, under other circumstances, use much more definite language. Protestant controversialists, therefore, endeavoured first of all to deny that the practice had ever really existed, and then when they were driven from this position, they asserted that it was unknown to the earliest Christians, as shown by the freedom with which Justin Martyr speaks on the subject of the Holy Eucharist, and that it was the result of persecution. They alleged therefore that Catholics could not use it to account for the silence of any writer before the latter part of the second century at the earliest. To this Catholics responded that, although no doubt the practice may have been intensified through persecution, it goes back to the very beginnings of Christianity, and to Christ's own words. Moreover it can be shown to have been in force before St. Justin's time, and his action must be regarded as an exception, rendered necessary by the need for putting before the emperor an account of the Christian religion which should be true and full.

The monuments of the earliest centuries afford interesting examples of the principle of the Discipline of the Secret. Monuments which could be seen by all could only speak of the mysteries of religion under veiled symbols. So in the catacombs there is scarcely any instance of a painting the subject of which is directly Christian, although all spoke of Christian truth to those who were instructed in their meaning. Jewish subjects typical of Christian truths were commonly chosen, while the representation of Christ under the name and form of a fish made the allusion to the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist possible and plain. There is, for example, the famous Autun inscription (see PECTORIUS): "Take the food, honey-sweet, of the redeemer of the saints, eat and drink holding the Fish in they hands"; words which every Christian would understand at once, but which conveyed nothing to the uninitiated. The inscription of Abercius offers another notable instance.

The need for this reticence became less pressing after the fifth century, as Europe became Christianized and the discipline gradually passed away. We may, however, still trace its effects in the seventh century in the absurd understatements contained in the Koran on the subject of the Blessed Trinity and the Holy Eucharist. This, perhaps, is almost the last instance which could be brought forward. Once the doctrines of the Church had been publicly set forth, any such discipline became impossible and no return to it was practicable. For a refutation of the theory of G. Anrich (Das Antike Mysterienwesen, 1894), that the primitive Christians borrowed this practice from the mysteries of Mithra, see Cumont, "The Mysteries of Mithra" (London, 1903), 196-99.

Schelstrate, De Disciplinâ arcani (Antwerp, 1678); Meier, De reconditâ vet. Eccl. theol. (Helmstedt, 1670); Shollinger, Dissert. de Disc. arc. (Venice, 1756); Lienhardt, De. antiq. liturg. et de disc. arc. (Strasburg, 1823); Toklot, De Disc. arc. (Cologne, 1836); Newman, Arians, i, 3. Among Protestant works: Fromann, De Disc. arc. in vet. Eccl., (Jena, 1833); Rothe, De disc. arc. (Heidelberg, 1841); Credner in Jenaer Literaturzeitung (1844); Bonwetsch, Ueber Wesen, Entstehung u. Fortgang d. Arckanidisziplin in Zeitschr. für hist. hist. Theol. (1873), II, 203-299; cf. also BINGHAM, Antiq. Eccl., and Haddan in Dict. of Christ. Antiq., s.v. The doubts raised by Abbé Batiffol in Etudes d'Hist. et de Théologie positive (Paris, 1902), 1-42, as to the antiquity and customary view of the Disciplina Arcani seem to have been satisfactorily quited by the learned treatise of Ignaz von Funk, Das Alter der Arkanidisziplin in his Theologische Abhandlungen (Paderborn, 1907), III, 42-57; MacDonald, The Discipline of the Secret in The Am. Eccl. Rev. (Philadelphia, 1904), xxx.

ARTHUR S. BARNES

Religious Discussions

(CONFERENCES, DISPUTATIONS, DEBATES)

Religious discussions, as contradistinguished from polemical writings, designate oral dialectical duels, more or less formal and public, between champions of divergent religious beliefs. For the most part, the more celebrated of these discussions have been held at the instigation of the civil authorities; for the Church has rarely shown favour to this method of ventilating revealed truth. This attitude of opposition on the part of the Church is wise and intelligible. A champion of orthodoxy, possessed of all the qualifications essential to a public debater, is not easily to be found. Moreover, it seems highly improper to give the antagonists of the truth an opportunity to assail mysteries and institutions which should be spoken of with reverence. The fact that the Catholic party to the controversy is nearly always obliged to be on the defensive places him at a disadvantage before the public, who, as Demosthenes remarks, "listen eagerly to revilings and accusations". At any rate, the Church, as custodian of Revelation, cannot abdicate her office and permit a jury of more or less competent individuals to decide upon the truths committed to her care.

St. Thomas (II-II, Q. x, a. 7) holds that it is lawful to dispute publicly with unbelievers, under certain conditions. To discuss as doubting the truth of the faith, is a sin; to discuss for the purpose of refuting error, is praiseworthy. At the same time the character of the audience must be considered. If they are well instructed and firm in their belief, there is no danger; if they are simple-minded then, where they are solicited by unbelievers to abandon their faith, a public defence is needful, provided it can be undertaken by competent parties. But where the faithful are not exposed to such perverting influences, discussions of the sort are dangerous. It is not, then, surprising that the question of disputations with heretics has been made the subject of ecclesiastical legislation. By a decree of Alexander IV (1254-1261) inserted in "Sextus Decretalium", Lib. V, c. ii, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommunication, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic Faith. The text reads: "Inhibemus quoque, ne cuiquam laicæ personæ liceat publice vel privatim de fide catholicâ disputare. Qui vero contra fecerit, excommunicationis laqueo innodetur." (We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.) This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public. There are numerous questions, somewhat connected with theology, which many laymen who have received no scientific theological training can treat more intelligently than a priest. In modern life, it frequently happens that an O'Connell or a Montalembert must stand forward as a defender of Catholic interests upon occasions when a theologian would be out of place. But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy.

But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization. In the Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide" (p. 102, n. 294) we find the following decree, issued 8 March, 1625: "The Sacred Congregation has ordered that public discussions shall not be held with heretics, because for the most part, either owing to their loquacity or audacity or to the applause of the audience, error prevails and the truth is crushed. But should it happen that such a discussion is unavoidable, notice must first be given to the S. Congregation, which, after weighing the circumstances of time and persons, will prescribe in detail what is to be done. The Sacred Congregation enforced this decree with such vigour, that the custom of holding public disputes with heretics wellnigh fell into desuetude. [See the decree of 1631 regarding the missionaries in Constantinople; also the decrees of 1645 and 1662, the latter forbidding the General of the Capuchins to authorize such disputes (Collectanea, 1674, n. 302).]

That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902) in which it is declared that discussions with Socialists are subject to the decrees of the Holy See regarding public disputes with heretics; and, in accordance with the decree of Propaganda, 7 Feb., 1645, such public disputations are not to be permitted unless there is hope of producing greater good and unless the conditions prescribed by theologians are fulfilled. The Holy See, it is added, considering that these discussions often produce no result at all or even result in harm, has frequently forbidden them and ordered ecclesiastical superiors to prevent them; where this cannot be done, care must be taken that the discussions are not held without the authorization of the Apostolic See; and that only those who are well qualified to secure the triumph of Christian truth shall take part therein. It is evident, then, that no Catholic priest is ever permitted to become the aggressor or to issue a challenge to such a debate. If he receives from the other party to the controversy a public challenge under circumstances which make a non-acceptance appear morally impossible, he must refer the case to his canonical superiors and be guided by their counsel. We thus reconcile two apparently contradictory utterances of the Apostles: for according to St. Peter (I Pet., iii, 15) you should be "ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you", while St. Paul admonishes Timothy (II Tim., ii, 14), "Contend not in words, for it is to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers".

HISTORIC DISPUTATIONS IN EARLY TIMES

The disputes of St. Stephen and St. Paul, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, were rather in the nature of Apostolic pleading than of formal discussions. St. Justin's "Dialogue with Tryphon" was, in all probability, a literary effort after the model of Plato's dialogues. St. Augustine, the ablest disputant of all time, engaged in several set debates with Arians, Manichæans, Donatists, and Pelagians. An interesting summary of each of these great disputations is preserved among the saint's works, and ought to be closely studied by those who are called to defend the Catholic cause. Of particular interest is the celebrated Conference of Carthage, convened by order of Emperor Honorius to finish the inveterate schism of the Donatists. It opened 1 June, 411, and lasted three days. The tribune Marcellinus represented the emperor, and in the presence of 286 Catholic and 279 Donatist bishops, St. Augustine, as chief spokesman of the Catholics, so completely upset the sectarian arguments, that the victory was awarded to the Catholics, many prominent members of the sect were converted, and Donatism was doomed to a lingering death. Another memorable disputation took place in Africa a couple of centuries later (645) between St. Maximus, Abbot of Chrysopolis (Scutari) and the Monothelite Patriarch Pyrrhus, who had been driven from Constantinople by popular violence. It was conducted with rare skill and ended with the temporary conversion of Pyrrhus to the orthodox faith.

DURING THE REFORMATION PERIOD

At the outbreak of the Lutheran and Zwinglian revolution, tumultuous discussions of religious subjects grew to be epidemic. Luther opened the revolt by inviting discussion upon his ninety-five theses, 31 Oct., 1517. Although ostensibly framed to furnish matter for an ordinary scholastic dispute, Luther did not seriously contemplate an oral debate; for several of his theses were at variance with Catholic doctrine and could not be discussed at a Catholic university. Instead, they were widely scattered through Europe, everywhere creating confusion. An opportunity of disseminating more openly his peculiar tenets regarding justification by faith alone, the slavery of the human will, and the sinfulness of good works was offered to the Reformer by his order during a convention held at Heidelberg in April, 1518, when he directed a dispute on twenty-eight theological and forty philosophical theses in the presence of many professors, students, citizens, and courtiers. Though his novel tenets were viewed with deep displeasure by the older heads, he was successful in winning over several of his younger hearers, notably Brenz and the Dominican, Martin Bucer. Emboldened by the outcome of the Heidelberg Dispute, and having discovered that the road to success lay in captivating the young, the agitator made futile attempts at organizing disputations at the seats of higher learning; but no university would lend its halls to the dissemination of un-Catholic doctrines.

The imprudence of Dr. Eck, who had become involved in a literary contest with Carlstadt and had hastily challenged his adversary to a public debate, gave Luther his long-looked-for opportunity. With his customary energy, he took the direction of the intellectual duel, encouraged both antagonists to persevere, and arranged the details. The city of Leipzig was chosen as the scene. Although the faculty of the university entered a vigorous protest, and the Bishops of Merseburg and Brandenburg launched prohibitions and an excommunication, the disputation took place under the ægis of Duke George of Saxony. The discontent of the Catholics was increased when they learned that Luther had secured permission to subjoin a controversy with Eck on the subject of papal supremacy. Eck came to Leipzig with one attendant; Luther and Carlstadt entered the city accompanied by an army of adherents, mostly students. The preliminaries were carefully arranged; after which, from 27 June to 4 July (1519) Eck and Carlstadt debated the subject of free will and our ability to cooperate with grace. Eck had the better part of the argument throughout, and forced his antagonist to make admissions which stultified the new Lutheran doctrine. Thereupon Luther himself came forward to assail the dogma of Roman supremacy by Divine right. Sweeping away the authority of decretals, councils, and Fathers, he discovered to his hearers, and possibly also to himself, how completely he had abandoned the basic principles of the Catholic religion. There could no longer remain a doubt that a new Hus had arisen to scourge the Church. The debate on the primacy was succeeded by discussions of purgatory, indulgences, penance, etc. On 14 and 15 July, Carlstadt, regaining courage, resumed the debate on free will and good works. Finally, Duke George declared the disputation closed, and each of the contendents departed, as usual, claiming the victory.

Of the two universities, Erfurt and Paris, to which the final decision had been reserved, Erfurt declined to intervene and returned the documents; Paris sat in judgment upon Luther's writings, attaching to each of his opinions the proper theological censure. The most tangible outcome of this disputation was that, while it opened the eyes of Duke George to the true nature of Luther's revolt and attached him unalterably to the Church of his fathers, on the other hand it gained for the Lutheran cause the valuable aid of the youthful Melanchthon, who never understood the merits of the controversy, but was overawed by the vigorous personality of the Reformer.

The Leipzig Disputation was the last occasion on which the ancient custom of swearing to advance no tenet contrary to Catholic doctrine was observed. In all subsequent debates between Catholics and Protestants, the bare text of Holy Writ was taken as the sole and sufficient fountain of authority. This, naturally, placed the Catholics in a disadvantageous position and narrowed their prospect of success. This was particularly the case in Switzerland, where Zwingli and his lieutenants organized a number of one-sided debates under the presidency of town councils already won over to Protestantism. Such were the disputations of Zurich, 1523, of Swiss Baden, 1526, and of Berne, 1528. In all of these the result was invariably the same, the abolition of Catholic worship and the desecration of churches and religious institutions.

Passing over the numerous futile attempts made by the Protestants to heal their intestine quarrels by means of colloquies, we come to the still more hopeless efforts of Charles V to bring the religious troubles of Germany to a "speedy and peaceful termination" by conferences between the Catholic and the Protestant divines. Since the Protestants proclaimed their determination to adhere to the terms of the Augsburg Confession, and, in addition, formally repudiated the authority of the Roman pontiff and "would admit no other judge of the controversy than Jesus Christ", it was to be foreseen that the result of conferences thus conducted could only be to waste time and increase the acrimony already existing between the parties. This was as clear to Pope Paul III as to Luther, both of whom predicted the inevitable failure. However, since the emperor and his brother, King Ferdinand, persisted in making a trial, the pope authorized his nuncio, Morone, to proceed to Speyer, whither the meeting had been summoned for June, 1540. As the plague was raging in that city the conference took place in Hagenau. Neither the Elector of Saxony nor the Landgrave of Hesse could be induced to attend. Melanchthon was absent through a heavy illness brought on by grief and shame at the ignoble part he had taken in the affair of the Landgrave's bigamy. The leading Protestant theologians at the conference were Bucer, Myconius, Brenz, Blaurer, and Urbanus Rhegius. The most prominent on the Catholic side were Bishop Faber of Vienna and Dr. Eck. Present and actively intriguing to prevent an accommodation was John Calvin, then exiled from Geneva; he appeared as confidential agent of the King of France, whose settled policy it was to perpetuate religious discord in the domains of his rival. After a month wasted in useless wrangling, King Ferdinand prorogued the conference to reassemble at Worms on 28 October.

Undismayed by the failure of the Hagenau conference, the emperor made more strenuous efforts for the success of the coming colloquy at Worms. He dispatched his minister Granvella and Ortiz, his envoy, to the papal court. The latter brought with him the celebrated Jesuit, Father Peter Faber. The pope sent the Bishop of Feltri, Tommaso Campeggio, brother of the great cardinal, and ordered Morone to attend. They were not to take part in the debates, but were to watch events closely and report to Rome. Granvella opened the proceedings at Worms, 25 Nov., with an eloquent and conciliatory address. He pictured the evils which had befallen Germany, "once the first of all nations in fidelity, religion, piety, and divine worship", and warned his hearers that "all the evils that shall come upon you and your people, if, by clinging stubbornly to preconceived notions, you prevent a renewal of concord, will be ascribed to you as the authors of them." On behalf of the Protestants, Melanchthon returned "an intrepid answer"; he threw all the blame upon the Catholics, who refused to accept the new Gospel.

A great deal of time was spent in wrangling over points of order; finally it was decided that Dr. Eck should be spokesman for the Catholics and Melanchthon for the Protestants. The debate began 14 Jan., 1541. A tactical blunder was committed in accepting the Augsburg Confession as the basis of the conference. That document had been drawn up to meet an emergency. It was apologetic and conciliatory, so worded as to persuade the young emperor that there was no radical difference between the Catholics and the Protestants. It admitted the spiritual jurisdiction of the bishops and tacitly acknowledged the supremacy of the pope by laying the ultimate appeal with a council by him convened. But many changes had taken place in the ten intervening years. The bishops had been driven out of every Protestant territory in Germany; the Smalkald confederates had solemnly abjured the pope and scorned his proffer of a council; each petty territorial prince had constituted himself the head and exponent of religion within his domain. For all practical purposes the Augsburg Confession was as useless as the laws of Lycurgus. Moreover, as Dr. Eck pointed out, the Augsburg Confession of 1540 was a different document from the Confession of 1530, having been changed by Melanchthon to suit his sacramentarian view of the Eucharist. Had the theologians at Worms reached an agreement on every point of doctrine, the discord in Germany would have continued none the less; for the princes had not the remotest idea of giving up their lucrative dominion over their territorial churches. Eck and Melanchthon battled four days over the topic of original sin and its consequences, and a formula was drafted to which both parties agreed, the Protestants with a reservation.

At this point Granvella suspended the conference, to he resumed at Ratisbon, whither the emperor had summoned a diet, which he promised to attend in person. This diet, from which the emperor anticipated brilliant results, was called to order 5 April, 1541. As legate of the pope appeared Cardinal Contarini, assisted by the nuncio Morone. The inevitable Calvin was present, ostensibly to represent Luneburg, in reality to foster discord in the interest of France. As collocutors at the religious conference which met simultaneously, Charles appointed Eck, Pflug, and Gropper for the Catholic side, and Melanchthon, Bucer, and Pistorius for the Protestants. A document of mysterious origin, the "Ratisbon Book", was presented by Joachim of Brandenburg as the basis of agreement. This strange compilation, it developed later, was the result of secret conferences, held during the meeting at Worms, between the Protestants, Bucer and Capito, on one side, and the Lutheranizing Gropper and a secretary of the emperor named Veltwick on the other. It consisted of twenty-three chapters, in which, by an ingenious phraseology, the attempt was made so to formulate the controverted doctrines that each party might find its own views therein expressed. How much Charles and Granvella had to do in the transaction, is unknown; they certainly knew and approved of it. The "Book" had been submitted by the Elector of Brandenburg to the judgment of Luther and Melanchthon; and their contemptuous treatment of it augured ill for its success. When it was shown to the legate and Morone, the latter was for rejecting it summarily; Contarini, after making a score of emendations, notably emphasizing in Article 14 the dogma of Transubstantiation, declared that now "as a private person" he could accept it; but as legate he must consult with the Catholic theologians. Eck secured the substitution of a conciser exposition of the doctrine of justification. Thus emended, the "Book" was presented to the collocutors by Granvella for consideration. The first four articles, treating of man before the fall, free will, the origin of sin, and original sin, were accepted. The battle began in earnest when the fifth article, on justification, was reached. After long and vehement debates, a formula was presented by Bucer and accepted by the majority, so worded as to be capable of bearing a Catholic and a Lutheran interpretation. Naturally, it was unsatisfactory to both parties. The Holy See condemned it and administered a severe rebuke to Contarini for not protesting against it. No greater success was attained as to the other articles of importance.

On 22 May the conference ended, and the emperor was informed as to the articles agreed upon and those on which agreement was impossible. Charles was sorely disappointed, hut he was powerless to effect anything further. The decree known as the "Ratisbon Interim", published 28 July, 1541, enjoining upon both sides the observance of the articles agreed upon by the theologians, was by both sides disregarded. Equally without result was the last of the conferences summoned by Charles at Ratisbon, 1546, just previously to the outbreak of the Smalkaldic War.

THE COLLOQUY AT POISSY

In 1561 six French cardinals and thirty-eight archbishops and bishops, with a host of minor prelates and doctors, wasted in a barren controversy with the Calvinists an entire month, which might have been spent far more advantageously to the Church and more in consonance with the duties of their offices had they taken their places in the Council of Trent. The conference had been arranged by Catharine de' Medici, the queen-mother and regent during the minority of her son, Charles IX. Between this typical representative of the Medici and her contemporary, Elizabeth of England, there was little to choose. With both religion was simply a matter of expediency and politics. The Calvinist faction in France, though less than half a million in number, was aggressive and insolent, under the guidance of several princes of the royal blood and members of the higher nobility. The fatal virus of Gallicanism and chronic disaffection towards the Holy See paralysed Catholic activity; and although a general council was in session under the legitimate presidency of the Roman pontiff, voices were heard even among the French bishops, advocating the convocation of a schismatical national synod. We may regard it as an extenuation of the guilt of Catharine and her advisers, that they refused to go the whole length of a schism and chose the alternative of a religious conference under the direction of the civil power. The pope did his utmost to prevent what, under the circumstances, could only he construed as a public defiance of ecclesiastical authority. He dispatched the Cardinal of Ferrara, with Laynez, General of the Jesuits, as his adviser, to dissuade the regent and the bishops. But the affair had gone too far; on 9 Sept. the representatives of the rival religions began their pleadings before a woman and a boy eleven years old. The proceedings were opened by a speech of Chancellor L'Hôpital, in which he emphasized the right and duty of the monarch to provide for the needs of the Church. Even should a general council be in session, a colloquy between Frenchmen convened by the king was the better way of settling religious disputes; for a general council, being, for the most part, composed of foreigners, was incapable of understanding the wishes and the needs of France. Yet these French politicians who refused to submit articles of faith to the decision of a general council because the majority of the Fathers were not French, chose as authoritative expounders of the dogmas of the Church the Genevan Beza and the Italian Vermigli.

It was a deep humiliation for the proud hierarchy of France to be compelled to listen to a long tirade by Beza against the most cherished of Catholic doctrines, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. They suppressed their feelings, out of respect for the king, until the hardy Reformer, in the heat of argument, gave utterance to his conviction that the Body and Blood of Christ were as far distant from the bread and wine, as the highest heaven is from the earth. This was too much for the bishops to bear, and they cried out, "He blasphemeth". It was too much for Catharine herself, and proved to her that the fundamental dogma of the Catholic Church was at stake. Beza's speech, revised and emended, was scattered broadcast among the people of France. We are told that the Cardinal of Lorraine confuted the heretic at the next session in a masterly address; but since he did not set it down in writing its value cannot be ascertained. The only sensible speech made at this colloquy was that of the Jesuit Laynez, who had the courage to remind the queen that the proper place for ventilating subjects concerning the Faith was Trent, not Paris; that the Divinely appointed judge of the religious controversies was the supreme pontiff, not the Court of France. Catharine wept; but instead of following the Jesuit's wise counsel, she appointed a committee of five Calvinists and five lukewarm Catholics, who drafted a vague formula which could be interpreted in a Catholic or a Calvinistic sense, and was consequently condemned by both parties.

The spread of Protestantism and the application of its fundamental principle of private judgment naturally produced far-reaching differences in belief. To heal these and so bring about unity, various conferences were held: at Weimar (1560), between the Lutherans, Striegel and Flacius, on free will; at Altenburg (1568-69), between the Jena theologians and those from Wittenberg, on free will and justification; at Montbéliard (1586), between Beza and the Tübingen theologians, on predestination. None of these resulted in harmony; they rather emphasized divergences in belief and intensified partisanship.

DISCUSSIONS IN MODERN TIMES

The conference of Poissy was the last attempt made to reconcile or slur over the radical differences of Catholicity and Protestantism. There have been some notable oral debates between champions of the rival religions in more recent times; but in these each side laboured to establish its own position and prove that of its adversary untenable. The most memorable and successful of these modern disputations was the "Conference on the Authority of the Church" held 8 March, 1679, between Bossuet and the Calvinist minister Jean Claude. This was a model of close debate, in which, with due courtesy, each antagonist kept strictly to the subject in hand, the relation of the Church and the Bible. The fondness of English-speaking peoples for public disputes has often shown itself in challenges, generally delivered by Protestant controversialists, to discuss religious topics in public. As a rule, they have produced no good results, since both sides revived wornout arguments and wandered over too wide a field. Such was the "Controversial Discussion between Rev. Thomas Maguire and Rev. Richard T. Pope", held in the lecture-room of the Dublin Institution in April, 1827, Daniel O'Connell being one of the presiding officers. It was printed and widely circulated. Of a similar nature was the "Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion", held in Cincinnati from 13 to 21 Jan., 1837, between Alexander Campbell, the founder of the Campbellite sect, and Bishop John F. Purcell. More satisfactory, because confined within closer limits, was the celebrated "Discussion of the Question, Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, Inimical to Civil or Religious Liberty? and of the Question, Is the Presbyterian Religion, in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, Inimical to Civil or Religious Liberty?" debated in Philadelphia in 1836 between Rev. John Hughes, later Archbishop of New York, and Rev. John Breckinridge of the Presbyterian Church. Both parties kept their tempers remarkably well; but to judge from the violent riots which broke out not long after, the debate had little effect in extinguishing unreasoning prejudices. With the exception of a debate on the question of St. Peter's residence in Rome, held in the Eternal City in 1872, there have been no oral religious discussions in recent times and this method of elucidating religious truth may be regarded as discountenanced by modern public opinion.

GÖPFERT in Kirchenlex., s. v. Disputation; SANTI, Prœlectiones Juris Can. (4th ed., Ratisbon, 1906), lib. V. p. 106; LOISELET, Ce que pense l'Eglise des Conférences Contradictoires in Etudes (20 Aug., 1905); PASTOR, Die kirchlichen Reunions-bestrebungen während der Regierung Karls V. (Freiburg, 1879).

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN.

St. Disibod

Irish bishop and patron of Disenberg (Disibodenberg), born c. 619; died 8 July, 700. His life was written in 1170 by St. Hildegarde, from her visions. St. Disibod journeyed to the Continent about the year 653, and settled in the valley of the Nahe, not far from Bingen. His labours continued during the latter half of the seventh century, and, though he led the life of an anchorite, he had a numerous community, who built bee-hive cells, in the Irish fashion, on the eastern slopes of the mountain. Before his death he had the happiness of seeing a church erected, served by a colony of monks following the Rule of St. Columba, and he was elected abbot-bishop, the monastery being named Mount Disibod, subsequently Disenberg, in the Diocese of Mainz. Numerous miracles are recorded of the saint. Some authors are of the opinion that his death really took place on 8 Sept., whilst the date 8 July is that of the translation of his relics in the year 754, St. Boniface being present.

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Disparity of Worship

(Disparitas Cultus)

A diriment impediment introduced by the Church to safeguard the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage. To effect this purpose a law was necessary that would debar Catholics from contracting marriage with persons unfit to receive the sacrament. The unfitness consists in

• either non-reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, which is the door to the other six sacraments; or
• in an unbelief in the sacramental character of marriage or in either or both of its essential properties (unity and indissolubility); or
• in a profession of belief or unbelief that endangers the three ends and threefold substantial blessings or advantages of this "great sacrament … in Christ and the church".

This unfitness, in whole or in part, is to be found in all persons who are not of the Catholic Faith and worship. Disparity of worship, in a general way, signifies a difference of religion or worship between two persons. This state of disagreement may be antecedent to, or consequent upon, their marriage. Consequent disparity occurs in the case of two pagans or unbaptized persons, one of whom, becoming a convert, is baptized in the Catholic Faith or validly baptized in some Christian sect after marriage. The marriage is not affected by this consequent disparity of religion. Another species of consequent diversity of worship which does not militate against the marriage is that of two Catholics, one of whom after their union apostatizes, or turns infidel, Mohammedan, etc. Antecedent disparity is twofold: considered in its strict and proper sense it is called perfect disparity of worship, or simply disparity of worship, and implies a different relation on the part of the contracting parties in the matter of an essential religious rite, to wit, the Sacrament of Baptism. Viewed in a less strict, but still a proper, sense, it is named imperfect disparity of worship or, more commonly, mixed religion (mixta religio), which presupposes an equality as to the reception of baptism, but denotes a divergency as to form of belief and religious observance. Imperfect disparity, or mixed relgion, does not render void the marriage of a Catholic with a baptized non-Catholic; but it does make it (unless dispensation intervenes) illicit and sinful. However, such a marriage may be null and void on account of another diriment impediment, e.g. clandestinity.

Disparity of worship, in its strict sense, and as the subject of this article, is that diversity which exists between two persons, one of whom has, and the other has certainly not, received Christian baptism. This disparity exists between a baptized Christian, whether Catholic or non-Catholic, and a pagan, Mohammedan, Jew, or even a catechumen (believer in the Catholic Faith yet not baptized). Imperfect disparity of worship, or mixed religion, might more strictly and aptly be named disparity of faith, since faith (an internal act), and not baptism, is the point of difference; perfect disparity of worship, on the contrary, might more aptly and properly be called disparity of baptism, for the reason that the external act (baptism), and not the internal assent of the mind (faith), is the fixed point of dissimilarity. Baptism has been chosen as the basis of this diriment impediment for a twofold reason:

• it is an external ceremony, easy of recognition and proof, and
• it is a sacrament which imprints an indelible character upon the soul of the receiver and so presents a personal religious condition which is fixed and unchangeable.

Personal faith, on the contrary, viewed either as the internal assent of the mind or as the outward profession of the internal act, is subject to change and not always easy of demonstration, and hence could not afford a certain and immovable foundation. The primary reason why Catholics are debarred from intermarriage with unbaptized persons is because the latter are not capable of receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony, as baptism is the door to all the other sacraments. Furthermore, according to the more probable opinion, the Catholic party who, with a dispensation, marries an unbaptized person, does not receive the sacrament or the concomitant graces (cf. Sanchez, Bk. II, disp. viii, n. 2; Pirhing, Bk. IV, tit. i, n. 71; Schmalzgrüber, Bk. IV, tit. i, n. 307; Billot, "De Ecclesiæ Sacramentis", pars posterior, 359 sqq.; Hurter, III, 538, n. 598; and Wernz, who examines the reasons for the opposite opinion and answers them, "Jus Decret.", IV, 63 sqq.). The Church has not decided this question; hence the opinion of Dominicus de Soto (In IV Sent., art. iii, ad finem), Perrone (II, 306), Rosset, who holds that it is the more probable (De Sacr. Matrimonii, I, 284 sqq.), and Tanquerey (Synopsis Theol. Dogmat., II, 648, n. 31), to wit, that the Catholic does receive the sacrament, is tenable. The marriage, according to both opinions, is certainly sacred (Leo XIII, "Arcanum", 10 Feb., 1880) and indissoluble.

EXTENT OF THE IMPEDIMENT

This impediment exists only in instances where the disparity is of such nature that one of the contracting parties is, and the other party is certainly not, baptized. Every baptized person, Protestant as well as Catholic, is subject to this disqualifying and annulling impediment, because Christ gave the Church jurisdiction over all who belong to it by baptism. Under the name "Catholic" are here included, besides practical Catholics, children baptized as infants in the Catholic Church but never reared or instructed in her teachings, Catholics who have fallen away or apostatized from the Catholic Faith and have joined other denominations or turned infidel. Once baptized always baptized, and always subject to the laws of Christ and His infallible Church, is axiomatic. Disparity of worship embraces and renders null and void (no dispensation having been granted) the marriage

• of a Catholic with pagan, Mohammedan, Jew, or catechumen, and
• of baptized non-Catholics, e.g. heretics and schismatics, with unbaptized persons.

It does not extend to, or make void, the marriage

• of two certainly unbaptized persons, for, since they do not belong to Christ by baptism, the Church has no jurisdiction over them;
• of a Catholic with a baptized Protestant, or schismatic, or apostate Catholic, or Catholic turned infidel;
• of baptized non-Catholics with one another.

Seeing that the parties in the second and third classes have been baptized, it is evident that their marriages are outside the domain of the diriment impediment, whose aim is to protect the sacrament.

Difficulties as to the marriages of Catholics with non-Catholics, and of non-Catholics with one another, or with pagans or other unbaptized persons have in these days multiplied, due either to absolute omission of baptism, or its careless and often invalid administration even among the so-called Christian denominations. Doubts about the administration (dubium facti) or valid administration (dubium juris) of baptism in these sects are as a consequence frequent, and render complex the question whether or not disparity of worship covers the marriages in these instances. The safe guide in this confusion is the axiom: a doubtful baptism, as regards a marriage already, or about to be celebrated, is presumed to be valid if, after due investigation, the doubt is still insoluble or it is not prudent (on account of delay, etc.) to remove it. This rule, so different from that governing baptism as a necessary means for salvation, is based upon the principle that the right to marry yields but to the evidence (not doubt) of the non-baptism. Accordingly, disparity of worship invalidates the matrimonial union of one doubtfully baptized with another certainly not baptized. The doubt may concern the act of baptizing or the validity of the ceremony. Investigation on these points must proceed in this manner: search must be made of the ritual belonging to the denomination of the party concerning whose baptism there is doubt, and if the ritual teaches the necessity of baptism, and prescribes the use of the valid matter and form in its administration, and, further, if the parents are strict adherents and observers of their religion, there is a certainty (sufficient for marriage) that the baptism was valid. If the ritual prescribes baptism with the necessary matter and form, but, upon investigation, a serious doubt remains, the baptism is still considered valid. If, on the contrary, the sect repudiates baptism, forbids infant-baptism, or admits to baptism only adults of thirty years, or the parents assert that they do not belong or wish to belong to any sect or denomination, but are satisfied with pleasing the Supreme Being by a good, moral life rather than by any fixed form of worship, then there is no certainty, not even a presumption, in favour of the baptism in childhood. Should the parents be careless and negligent in the observances of the sect of which they are members, or belong to a denomination which, whilst not rejecting baptism, yet does not admit its necessity, and in which, ordinarily, baptism is not administered, then there is no presumption for or against the baptism of their offspring, and each individual case must be referred to Rome (Congreg. of the Inquisition, 1 Aug., 1883).

Disparity of worship does not affect the marriage of a Catholic or baptized non-Catholic with one whose baptism, even after careful investigation concerning the baptismal ceremony or its validity, remains doubtful. Neither does it in any way influence the marriage of two who, after diligent examination, are still considered doubtfully baptized. There is a difference of opinion among the jurists and theologians as to the influence of this diriment impediment upon the marriage of two doubtfully baptized, if after investigation it turns out for a certainty that one was certainly unbaptized. The more common opinion is that disparity of worship does not nullify this marriage. Gasparri gives as reason that the consuetudinary law never contemplated this case, and hence does not influence it (De Matrimonio, I, nos. 597 and 601). Wernz (IV, 772, note), Gury-Ballerini (II, 831), and others say that the marriage is valid, but give as reason the Church's dispensation, either special or general. Lehmkuhl (II, 536) distinguishes and asserts that if a dispensation from the prohibitive impediment of "mixed religion" has been granted antecedent to the marriage, the union is valid; his reason, however, that the Church in dispensing with the prohibitive did not implicitly dispense with the diriment impediment, seems to be at variance with a decree of the Holy Office (29 April, 1840, n. 2) which clearly states that the Holy See dispenses with the impediment of disparity of worship only in express terms. Where no dispensation has been granted, he holds that the marriage is null on account of the existing disparity of worship and must be revalidated. He recognizes, however, as valid the marriage of the doubtfully baptized, if they had been considered and had considered themnselves Catholics, and had followed Catholic practices, and afterwards it was discovered that one of them had not been baptized (loc. cit. in note).

ORIGIN OF THE IMPEDIMENT

This impediment, inasmuch as it is diriment, is not enjoined by the natural, Divine, or written ecclesiastical law, but has been introduced by a universal custom and practice in the Eastern and Western Churches since the twelfth century. The natural and Divine laws do, however, repudiate and prohibit such marriages as tend to frustrate the primary ends of marriage by exposing believers and their offspring to the loss of their Catholic faith, and this prohibition continues in force so long as the danger exists and no proportionately grave cause dictates the necessity of such marriage. The Mosaic Law (Deut., vii, 3) prohibits marriage between the Israelites and the Chanaanites, and even the Samaritans (who kept the Law and had the Book of Moses), on account of the heathenish ceremonies they observed, lest the Jews might be turned away from the service of the true God and cling to the worship of the false gods of their pagan wives. The Pauline injunctions (I Cor., vii, 39), "… let her marry to whom she will but only in the Lord" and (II Cor., vi, 14): "… bear not the yoke with [i.e. do not marry] unbelievers", do not, indeed, declare invalid the marriages of Christians with unbelievers, but certainly do earnestly forbid the faithful to marry unbelievers unless the ends of Christian marriage are safeguarded and grave and weighty reasons exist for the union. Certainly in the time of St. Paul and immediately afterwards the proportionately small number of Christians was sufficiently grave cause for permitting such intermarriages with the hope of the conversion of the unbelieving partner.

With the development of the Church and its growth in numbers, opportunities for Christian marriage increased, proportionately grave reasons for mixed unions (unless in rare cases) ceased, and then the natural and Divine laws asserted their right to prohibit such marriages as tended to frustrate the ends of the matrimonial sacrament by exposing the Catholic to a weakening or loss of faith, the offspring to a lack of Christian education, and the family to a want of that Christian love which is its very corner-stone. The Christian laity, as well as clergy, realized from sad experience and observation the ordinary tendency of mixed unions to a compromise or loss of faith on the part of the Catholic, and the un-Catholic bringing-up or at least religious indifference, of the children, and, finally, injury to domestic peace and happiness by the constant exposure to disputes, and sometimes bitter quarrels, about the fundamental principles of Catholic Faith, and the consequent weakening, if not total extinction, of Christian love between husband and wife (St. Ambrose, De Abraham, Bk. I, ch. ix, says: "There can be no unity of love where there is no untiy of faith"). At different periods and in different countries (especially Spain and Gaul) particular councils inveighed against them, and although these canons were not strictly observed, and there were many mixed marriages in the days of Sts. Jerome (Lib. I in Jovinianum) and Augustine (Lib. de Fide et operibus, ch. xix), yet after the death of the latter, and especially from the seventh to the twelfth century, the detestation of them so increased, and the conviction that they were not Christian marriages, and therefore to be shunned and not contracted, grew so strong and general throughout the entire Church that as far back as the twelfth century it was a universal custom and practice which even had the force of a universal church law (Bellarmine, De Controversiis, III, De Sacramento Matrimonii, Bk. I, ch. xxiii; Benedict XIV, Constit. "Singulari nobis", paragraphs 9 and 10).

This impediment is binding on Christians of newly converted or even pagan countries, where there has been no such custom inasmuch as there have been no Catholics. The opinion of Lessius and others to the contrary is clearly refuted by the granting of faculties by Gregory XIII to the Christian missionaries of Japan to dispense with this impediment in the cases of newly converted Japanese Catholics. Many theologians and canonists say that there is one exception to this nullifying law, and that is the instance of an emigrant Catholic family settled in a pagan country without a single Catholic neighbour, forty or fifty days journey removed from the nearest Catholic, and unable on account of the distance or want of means to leave the country or procure a dispensation from the impediment, and thus compelled to remain their whole lives single or marry pagans (Santi-Leitner, IV, 74; Gasparri, De Matrimonio, I, 429). It does not seem that disparity of worship holds in a case of this kind; the ecclesiastical law under such circumstances does not bind a man so as to deprive him of his natural right to marry. Wernz, however (Jus Decret., IV, 775, n. 37), holds the opposite opinion.

DISPENSATION FROM THE IMPEDIMENT

The Church can dispense from this impediment inasmuch as it is of ecclesiastical institution. It never does so unless for gravest reasons and upon the fulfillment of certain conditions and guarantees that safeguard, as far as possible, the ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony. The natural and Divine laws, before permitting mixed marriages, exact the removal of all danger to the faith of the Catholic and to the baptism and Catholic bringing-up of all of the children of the marriage. The Church cannot dispense with this necessary requirement, and, the better to ensure its presence, insists upon certain conditions and promises, which must be committed to writing and signed and, in some instances and countries, also sworn to, by the unbaptized party to the pact. The unbeliever promises faithfully to comply with the requirements of the Church, and the Church on her part grants the permission for the marriage. The promises on the part of the unbaptized party are:

• that he (or she) will afford the Catholic partner full and perfect freedom to practise the Catholic Faith, and that he (or she) will abstain from saying or doing aught to weaken or change that faith, and, if he be an inhabitant of a pagan country, that he will not practise polygamy;
• that he (or she) will permit all children of their union to be baptized and reared in the Catholic Faith and practice, and that he (or she) will do or say nothing calculated to lessen their faith or turn them away from it or its practices.

The Catholic petitioner for the dispensation must also give promise (usually also written, in order that the dispenser may have a moral certainty of the absence of danger to the substantial ends of the sacrament) that he (or she) will strictly attend to his (or her) personal religious duties and have all the children baptized and properly reared and trained in the Catholic doctrine and practice, and that by prayer and good example and other legitimate and prudent means he (or she) will constantly labour to bring about the conversion to the Catholic Faith of his (or her) unbaptized partner. The promise to strive to effect the conversion of the unbeliever is of special importance, although too frequently lost sight of. The conversion most assuredly eliminates the last vestige of possible perversion of the Catholic party, ensures the primary end of marriage, i.e., the bearing and rearing of children for the Church and heaven, and rounds out, by the perfect unity of the married couple in faith and Christian love, their marriage according to its great type, the union of Christ with the Church. Even with all these promises, written and sworn to as safeguards to Christian marriage, a dispensation cannot be licitly given unless a grave necessity proportionate to the great risks to be encountered, justifies the marriage.

This dispensation, in former days very rarely granted in Catholic countries, is now of more frequent occurrence, owing to the existence of "civil marriage" and the growing indifference on the part of parents in the matter of their children's baptism. The rule of the Church was, and is, not to grant a dispensation from this impediment unless in provinces or countries where the Catholics are largely outnumbered by the non-baptized inhabitants. Rather than dispense from the disparity of worship, the Church will more willingly and readily grant dispensation from the diriment impediments of affinity and consanguinity, precisely for the reason that in the latter cases there is no danger to the faith of either Catholic or offspring, while in the case of the former, even though the necessary promises are made and kept, there is always danger of religious indifference on the part of the Catholic parent, and especially of the children on account of the example of the non-baptized parent. The pope alone sui jure can dispense with this impediment; bishops cannot. They, however, are delegated to do so, but in the pope's name and by virtue of the delegated authority. Thus the bishops in pagan countries–China, Japan, Africa, etc.–and in countries where the unbaptized largely outnumber the Catholics, as England, United States, etc., have ample faculties in respect of this impediment. To-day the only case (and should there be danger in delay it is not: see Formula T, 11 June, 1907) reserved to Rome in the faculties granted to bishops of the United States is that of a Catholic with an orthodox Jew, i.e. a circumcised follower of Judaism. The case of a Jew uncircumcised, or even circumcised if he has abandoned Judaism, is not reserved.

This delegated faculty to bishops is given only for a specified period of five years or for a certain number of cases and requires that the bishop in granting a dispensation must state that it was conceded by virtue of Apostolic delegation of specified date. Where the impediment is occult, and there is danger in delay, bishops may dispense without express faculty of Rome, which in such cases is presumed to grant it. All bishops can (decrees of Congreg. of Inquis., 20 Feb., 1888, and 1 March, 1889) dispense, and delegate the parish priests to dispense, from the impediment of disparity of worship in the case of one who is in danger of death but is only civilly married or lives in concubinage. The aforesaid promises cannot be omitted. The sick party must promise absolutely to observe the requirements of the natural and Divine laws, and to carry out the injunctions of the ecclesiastical law as far as possible (Collectanea S. C. de Prop. Fide, n. 2188). Bishops cannot dispense in instances where the ends, purposes, and substantial blessings of the sacrament are well protected, unless there also exists a grave and proportionately weighty reason. There are sixteen canonical reasons, some grave and others still more grave (Instruct. S. C. de Prop. Fide, 9 May, 1877). Should the bishop dispense without cause, the dispensation would be null and void. The pope's dispensation, in a similar case labouring under the same defect, would be valid. The reason of this difference is that a bishop cannot violate the law of his superior (in this instance the universal law), whereas the pope, who is supreme legislator, can dispense from universal ecclesiastical laws. He cannot, however, do so validly with the prohibition of the natural and Divine laws; hence he must have, before conceding the dispensation, a moral certainty that the practice of the Faith by the Catholic, and the Catholic baptism and rearing of the children, are amply protected. The Holy See dispenses from this impediment only for the gravest reasons and only in express terms (Collectanea S. C. de Prop. Fide, n. 948, 2); hence a dispensation from mixed religion instead of disparity of worship would not suffice for the validity of the marriage.

All the European Governments (except Austria) ignore this impediment. The Austrian impediment is different from the ecclesiastical impediment. Its basis is the profession of faith, and not the baptism of the parties, and so far as Catholicism is concerned, this civil impediment is more injurious than otherwise. According to the Austrian law, the marriage of a Catholic with a Jew, or other unbaptized party, is civilly invalid as long as the Catholic remains in the Catholic Church. Should the Catholic leave the Church, and announce that he (or she) held no belief in any faith, the marriage with an unbaptized partner would be civilly valid. Unbaptized parties can, on the other hand, enter into civilly valid marriage with baptized Protestants. The Church in granting dispensation from disparity of worship, thus permitting the marriage of a Catholic and an unbaptized person, by that act dispenses also from all impediments of purely ecclesiastical institution, from which the unbaptized is exempt (except clandestinity; cf. "Praxis Curiæ Romanæ"; "Ne Temere", 2 Aug., 1907); the Church does this in order that the exemption of the unbaptized may, on account of the indissolubility of the marriage, be communicated to the Catholic party (Congreg. of Inquis., 3 March, 1825). This dispensation never includes dispensation in any degree in the direct line nor in the first degree of the transverse line (Gasparri, op. cit., nos 700, 701). This impediment, which is publici juris, can be invoked by any Catholic to annul a marriage contracted without the necessary dispensation. The burden of proof rests upon the challenger, who must clearly demonstrate that there was either no act of baptismal administration or that the act of administration which actually took place was certainly invalid. The usual canonical laws of evidence are supplemented by special laws laid down for the demonstration of the ceremony or the validity of the baptism. The customary norm (c. iii, X, De presby. non-bap., III, xliii) in case of practical Catholics does not govern the cases of non-Catholics or negligent Catholics. The rules prescribed by the Congreg. of the Inquisition (1 Aug., 1883, and 5 Feb., 1851) for the verification of the fact or non-fact of the baptism, as also of the validity of the act, must be strictly followed.

      SchmalzgrÜber, Bk. IV, tit. vi, sect. 4; Ferraris, Bibliotheca (Rome, 1889), V, 301 sq.; Pirhing, Jus. Can. (Dillingen, 1678), Bk. IV, tit. i, sect. 6; Feije, De Imped. et Dispen. Matrimonialibus (Louvain, 1874), xx; Gasparri, De Matrimonio (Paris, 1893), I, 401 sqq.; Ballerini, Opus Theol. Morale (Prato, 1894), VI, De Matrimonia, 530 sq.; Haine, Theol. Moralis Elementa (Louvain, 1900), IV, 158 sqq.; Wernz, Jus Decret. (Rome, 1904), iv, 759-81; Rosset, De Sacramento Matrimonii (Montreuil­sur­Mer, 1895), III, art. iii; Santi- Leitner, Prælect. Jur. Can. (Ratisbon, 1899), IV, 66-75; AndrÉ­ Wagner, Empéchements de marriage in De Sponsal. et Matrimonio (Brussels, 1896), 214 sqq.; Noldin, De Sacramentis (Innsbruck, 1906), 698 sqq.; Putzer, Commentarium in Apost. Facul. (New York, 1898), 379 sqq.; Irish Eccl. Record, Series III, vol. X (1889), 924 sqq.; Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide (Rome, 1907), index, s. v. Disparitas.

P.M.J. Rock

Dispensation

(Lat. dispensatio)

Dispensation is an act whereby in a particular case a lawful superior grants relaxation from an existing law. This article will treat:

For dispensations from vows see VOWS and RELIGIOUS ORDERS; and from fasting and abstinence, FAST, ABSTINENCE.

I. DISPENSATION IN GENERAL

Dispensation differs from abrogation and derogation, inasmuch as these suppress the law totally or in part, whereas a dispensation leaves it still in vigour; and from epikeia, or a favourable interpretation of the purpose of the legislator, which supposes that he did not intend to include a particular case within the scope of his law, whereas by dispensation a superior withdraws from the power of the law a case which otherwise would fall under it. The raison d'être for dispensation lies in the nature of prudent administration, which often counsels the adapting of general legislation to the needs of a particular case by way of exception. This is peculiarly true of ecclesiastical administration. Owing to the universality of the Church, the adequate observance by all its members of a single code of laws would be very difficult. Moreover, the Divine purpose of the Church, the welfare of souls, obliges it to reconcile as far as possible the general interests of the community with the spiritual needs or even weaknesses of its individual members. Hence we find instances of ecclesiastical dispensations from the very earliest centuries; such early instances, however, were meant rather to legitimize accomplished facts than to authorize beforehand the doing of certain things. Later on antecedent dispensations were frequently granted; as early as the eleventh century Yves of Chartres, among other canonists, outlined the theory on which they were based. With reference to matrimonial dispensations now common, we meet in the sixth and seventh centuries with a few examples of general dispensations granted to legitimize marriages already contracted, or permitting others about to be contracted. It is not, however, until the second half of the eleventh century that we come upon papal dispensations affecting individual cases. The earliest examples relate to already existing unions; the first certain dispensation for a future marriage dates from the beginning of the thirteenth century. In the sixteenth century the Holy See began to give ampler faculties to bishops and missionaries in distant lands; in the seventeenth century such privileges were granted to other countries. Such was the origin of the ordinary faculties (see FACULTIES, CANONICAL) now granted to bishops.

(1) Kinds of Dispensation

• (a) A dispensation may be explicit, tacit, or implicit, according as it is manifested by a positive act, or by silence under circumstances amounting to acquiescence, or solely by its connexion with another positive act that presupposes the dispensation.
• (b) It may be granted in foro interno, or in foro externo, according as it affects only the personal conscience, or conscience and the community at large. Although dispensations in foro interno are used for secret cases, they are also often granted in public cases; hence they must not be identified with dispensations in casu occulto.
• (c) A dispensation may be either direct or indirect, according as it affects the law directly, by suspending its operation, or indirectly, by modifying the object of the law in such a way as to withdraw it from the latter's control. For instance, when a dispensation is granted from the matrimonial impediment of a vow, the pope remits the obligation resulting from the promise made to God, consequently also the impediment it raised against marriage.
• (d) A dispensation may be in formâ gratiosâ, in formâ commissâ, or in formâ commissâ mixtâ. Those of the first class need no execution, but contain a dispensation granted ipso facto by the superior in the act of sending it. Those of the second class give jurisdiction to the person named as executor of the dispensation, if he should consider it advisable; they are, therefore, favours to be granted. Those of the third class command the executor to deliver the dispensation if he can verify the accuracy of the facts for which such dispensation is asked; they seem, therefore, to contain a favour already granted. From the respective nature of each of these forms of dispensation result certain important consequences that affect delegation, obreption, and revocation in the matter of dispensations (see DELEGATION; OBREPTION; REVOCATION).

(2) The Dispensing Power

It lies in the very notion of dispensation that only the legislator, or his lawful successor, can of his own right grant a dispensation from the law. His subordinates can do so only in the measure that he permits. If such communication of ecclesiastical authority is made to an inferior by reason of an office he holds, his power, though derived, is known as ordinary. If it is only given him by way of commission it is known as delegated power. When such delegation takes place through a permanent law, it is known as delegation by right of law. It is styled habitual, when, though given by a particular act of the superior, it is granted for a certain period of time or a certain number of cases. Finally, it is called particular if granted only for one case. When the power of dispensation is ordinary it may be delegated to another unless this be expressly forbidden. When it is delegated, as stated above, it may not be subdelegated unless this be expressly permitted; exception is made, however, for delegation ad universitatem causarum i. e. for all cases of a certain kind, and for delegation by the pope or the Roman Congregations. Even these exceptions do not cover delegations made because of some personal fitness of the delegate, nor those in which the latter receives, not actual jurisdiction to grant the dispensation, but an appointment to execute it, e. g. in the case of dispensations granted in formâ commissâ mixtâ (see above).

The power of dispensation rests in the following persons:

(3) Causes for Granting Dispensations

A sufficient cause is always required in order that a dispensation may be both valid and licit when an inferior dispenses from a superior's law, but only for the liceity of the act when a superior dispenses from his own law. Nevertheless, in this latter case a dispensation granted without a motive would not (in se), except for some special reason, e. g. scandal, constitute a serious fault. One may be satisfied with a probably sufficient cause, or with a cause less than one that, of itself and without any dispensation, would excuse from the law. It is always understood that a superior intends to grant only a licit dispensation. Therefore a dispensation is null when in the motives set forth for obtaining it a false statement is made which has influenced not only the causa impulsiva, i. e. the reason inclining the superior more easily to grant it, but also the causa motiva, i. e. the really determining reason for the grant in question. For this, and in general for the information which should accompany the petition, in order that a dispensation be valid, see below apropos of obreption and subreption in rescripts of dispensation. Consequently a false statement or the fraudulent withholding of information, i. e. done with positive intention of deceiving the superior, totally annuls the dispensation, unless such statement bear on a point foreign to the matter in hand. But if made with no fraudulent intent, a false statement does not affect the grant unless the object of the statement be some circumstance which ought to have been expressed under pain of nullity, or unless it affects directly the motive cause as above described. Even then false statements do not always nullify the grant; for;

• (a) when the dispensation is composed of several distinct and separable parts, that part or element alone is nullified on which falls the obreption or subreption, as the case may be;
• (b) when several adequately distinguished motive causes are set forth, the dispensation is null and void only when the obreption or subreption in question affects them all.

It is enough, moreover, that the accuracy of the facts be verified at the moment when the dispensation is granted. Therefore, in the case of dispensations ex gratiâ (or in formâ gratiosâ), i. e. granting favours, the facts must be true when the dispensation is expedited; on the other hand, in the case of dispensations in formâ commissâ (and according to the more general opinion, in those in formâ commissâ mixtâ), the causes alleged must be verified only when the dispensation is actually executed.

(4) Form and Interpretation

It is proper, generally speaking, that dispensations be asked for and granted in writing. Moreover, the Roman Congregations are forbidden, as a rule, to receive petitions for dispensations or to answer them by telegram. The execution of a dispensation made on receipt of telegraphic information that such dispensation had been granted would be null, unless such means of communication had been officially used by special authorization from the pope. Except when the interest of a third party is at stake, or the superior has expressed himself to the contrary, the general dispensing power, whether ordinary or delegated, ought to be broadly interpreted, since its object is the common good. But the actual dispensation (and the same holds true of dispensing power given for a particular case) ought to be strictly interpreted unless it is a question of a dispensation authorized by the common law, or one granted motu proprio (by the superior spontaneously) to a whole community, or with a view to the public good. Again, that interpretation is lawful without which the dispensation would prove hurtful or useless to the beneficiary, also that which extends the benefits of the dispensation to whatever is juridically connected with it.

(5) Cessation of Dispensations

• (a) A dispensation ceases when it is renounced by the person in whose favour it was granted. However, when the object of the dispensation is an obligation exclusively resulting from one's own will, e. g. a vow, such renunciation is not valid until accepted by the competent superior. Moreover, neither the non-use of a dispensation nor the fact of having obtained another dispensation incompatible with the former is, in itself, equivalent to a renunciation. Thus, if a girl had received a dispensation to marry Peter and another to marry Paul, she would remain free to marry either of them.
• (b) A dispensation ceases when it is revoked after due notice to the recipient. The legislator can validly revoke a dispensation, even without cause, though in the latter case it would be illicit to do so; but without a cause an inferior cannot revoke a dispensation, even validly. With a just cause, however, he can do so if he has dispensed by virtue of his general powers (ordinary or delegated); not so, however, when his authority extended merely to one particular case, since thereby his authority was exhausted.
• (c) A dispensation ceases by the death of the superior when, the dispensation having been granted in formâ commissâ, the executor had not yet begun to execute it. But the grant holds good if given ex gratiâ (as a favour) and even, more probably, if granted in formâ commissâ mixtâ. In any case, the new pope is wont to revalidate all favours granted in the immediately previous year by his predecessor and not yet availed of.
• (d) A conditional dispensation ceases on verification of the condition that renders it void, e. g. the death of the superior when the dispensation was granted with the clause ad beneplacitum nostrum (at our good pleasure).
• (e) A dispensation ceases by the adequate and total cessation of its motive causes, the dispensation thereupon ceasing to be legitimate. But the cessation of the influencing causes, or of a part of the motive causes, does not affect the dispensation. However, when the motive cause, though complex, is substantially one, it is rightly held to cease with the disappearance of one of its essential elements.

II. MATRIMONIAL DISPENSATIONS

A matrimonial dispensation is the relaxation in a particular case of an impediment prohibiting or annulling a marriage. It may be granted:

• (a) in favour of a contemplated marriage or to legitimize one already contracted;
• (b) in secret cases, or in public cases, or in both (see IMPEDIMENTS OF MATRIMONY);
• (c) in foro interno only, or in foro externo (the latter includes also the former). Power of dispensing in foro interno is not always restricted to secret cases (casus occulti).

These expressions, as stated above, are by no means identical. We shall classify the most important considerations in this very complex matter, under four heads:

• (1) general powers of dispensation;
• (2) particular indults of dispensation;
• (3) causes for dispensations;
• (4) costs of dispensations.

(1) General Powers of Dispensation

(A) The Pope

The pope cannot dispense from impediments founded on Divine law-except, as above described, in the case of vows, espousals, and non-consummated marriages, or valid and consummated marriage of neophytes before baptism (see NEOPHYTES). In doubtful cases, however, he may decide authoritatively as to the objective value of the doubt. In respect of impediments arising from ecclesiastical law the pope has full dispensing power. Every such dispensation granted by him is valid, and when he acts from a sufficient motive it is also licit. He is not wont, however, out of consideration for the public welfare, to exercise this power personally, unless in very exceptional cases, where certain specific impediments are in question. Such cases are error, violence, Holy orders, disparity of worship, public conjugicide, consanguinity in the direct line or in the first degree (equal) of the collateral Line, and the first degree of affinity (from lawful intercourse) in the direct line. As a rule the pope exercises his power of dispensation through the Roman Congregations and Tribunals.

Up to recent times the Dataria was the most important channel for matrimonial dispensations when the impediment was public or about to become public within a short time. The Holy Office, however, bad exclusive control in foro externo over all impediments connected with or juridically bearing on matters of faith, e. g. disparity of worship, mixta religio, Holy orders, etc. The dispensing power in foro interno lay with the Penitentiaria, and in the case of pauperes or quasi-pauperes this same Congregation had dispensing power over public impediments in foro externo. The Penitentiaria held as pauperes for all countries outside of Italy those whose united capital, productive of a fixed revenue, did not exceed 5370 lire (about 1050 dollars); and as quasi-pauperes, those whose capital did not exceed 9396 lire (about 1850 dollars). It likewise had the power of promulgating general indults affecting public impediments, as for instance the indult of 15 Nov., 1907. Propaganda was charged with all dispensations, both in foro inferno and in foro externo, for countries under its jurisdiction, as was the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs for all countries depending on it, e. g. Russia, Latin America, and certain vicariates and prefectures Apostolic.

On 3 November, 1908, the duties of these various Congregations received important modifications in consequence of the Constitution "Sapienti", in which Pope Pius X reorganized the Roman Curia. Dispensing power from public impediments in the case of pauperes or quasi-pauperes was transferred from the Dataria and the Penitentiaria to a newly established Congregation known as the Congregatio de Disciplinâ Sacramentorum. The Penitentiaria retains dispensing power over occult impediments in foro interno only. The Holy Office retains its faculties, but restricted expressly under three heads:

• (1) disparity of worship;
• (2) mixta religio;
• (3) the Pauline Privilege [see DIVORCE (IN MORAL THEOLOGY)].

Propaganda remains the channel for securing dispensations for all countries under its jurisdiction, but as it is required for the sake of executive unity, to defer, in all matters concerning matrimony, to the various Congregations competent to act thereon, its function is henceforth that of intermediary. It is to be remembered that in America, the United States, Canada and Newfoundland, and in Europe, the British Isles are now withdrawn from Propaganda, and placed under the common law of countries with a hierarchy. The Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs loses all its powers; consequently the countries hitherto subject to it must address themselves either to the Holy Office or to the Congregatio de Disciplinâ Sacramentorum according to the nature of the impediment.

It should be noted that the powers of a Congregation are suspended during the vacancy of the Holy See, except those of the Penitentiaria in foro interno, which, during that time, are even increased. Though suspended, the powers of a Congregation may be used in cases of urgent necessity.

(B) The Diocesan Bishops

We shall treat first of their fixed perpetual faculties, whether ordinary or delegated, afterwards of their habitual and temporary faculties. By virtue of their ordinary power (see JURISDICTION) bishops can dispense from those prohibent impediments of ecclesiastical law which are not reserved to the pope. The reserved impediments of this kind are espousals, the vow of perpetual chastity, and vows taken in diocesan religious institutes (see RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS), mixta religio, public display and solemn blessing at marriages within forbidden times, the vetitum, or interdict laid on a marriage by the pope, or by the metropolitan in a case of appeal. The bishop may also dispense from diriment impediments after the following manner: —

• (a) By tacit consent of the Holy See he can dispense in foro interno from secret impediments from which the pope is wont to exercise his power of dispensing, in the three following cases:
• • (1) in marriages already contracted and consummated, when urgent necessity arises (i. e. when the interested parties cannot be separated without scandal or endangering their souls, and there is no time to have recourse to the Holy See or to its delegate) — it is, however, necessary that such marriage shall have taken place in lawful form before the Church, and that one of the contracting parties at least shall have been ignorant of the impediment;
  • (2) in marriages about to be contracted and which are called embarrassing (perplexi) cases, i. e. where everything being ready a delay would be defamatory or would cause scandal;
  • (3) when there is a serious doubt of fact as to the existence of an impediment; in this case the dispensation seems to hold good, even though in course of time the impediment becomes certain, and even public. In cases where the law is doubtful no dispensation is necessary; but the bishop may, if he thinks proper, declare authentically the existence and sufficiency of such doubt.
• (b) By virtue of a decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition or Holy Office (20 February, 1888) diocesan bishops and other ordinaries (especially vicars Apostolic, administrators Apostolic, and prefects Apostolic, having jurisdiction over an allocated territory, also vicars-general in spiritualibus, and vicars capitular) may dispense in very urgent (gravissimum) danger of death from all diriment impediments (secret or public) of ecclesiastical law, except priesthood and affinity (from lawful intercourse) in the direct line.

However, they can use this privilege only in favour of persons actually living in real concubinage or united by a merely civil marriage, and only when there is no time for recourse to the Holy See. They may also legitimize the children of such unions, except those born of adultery or sacrilege. In the decree of 1888 is also included the impediment of clandestinity. This decree permits therefore (at least until the Holy See shall have issued other instructions) to dispense, in the case of concubinage or civil marriage, with the presence of the priest and of the two witnesses required by the Decree "Ne temere" in urgent cases of marriage in extremis. Canonists do not agree as to whether bishops hold these faculties by virtue of their ordinary power or by general delegation of the law. It seems to us more probable that those just described under;

• (a) belong to them as ordinaries, while those under
• (b) are delegated.

They are, therefore, empowered to delegate the former; in order to subdelegate the latter they must be guided by the limits fixed by the decree of 1888 and its interpretation dated 9 June, 1889. That is, if it is a question of habitual delegation parish priests only should receive it, and only for cases where there is no time for recourse to the bishop.

Besides the fixed perpetual faculties, bishops also receive from the Holy See habitual temporary indults for a certain period of time or for a limited number of cases. These faculties are granted by fixed "formulæ", in which the Holy See from time to time, or as occasion requires it, makes some slight modifications. (See FACULTIES, CANONICAL.) These faculties call for a broad interpretation. Nevertheless it is well to bear in mind, when interpreting them, the actual legislation of the Congregation whence they issue, so as not to extend their use beyond the places, persons, number of cases, and impediments laid down in a given indult. Faculties thus delegated to a bishop do not in any way restrict his ordinary faculties; nor (in se) do the faculties issued by one Congregation affect those granted by another. When several specifically different impediments occur in one and the same case, and one of them exceeds the bishop's powers, he may not dispense from any of them. Even when the bishop has faculties for each impediment taken separately he cannot (unless he possesses the faculty known as de cumulo) use his various faculties simultaneously in a case where, all the impediments being public, one of them exceeds his ordinary faculties, it is not necessary for a bishop to delegate his faculties to his vicars-general; since 1897 they are always granted to the bishop as ordinary, therefore to the vicar-general also. With regard to other priests a decree of the holy Office (14 Dec., 1898) declares that for the future temporary faculties may be always subdelegated unless the indult expressly states the contrary. These faculties are valid from the date when they were granted in the Roman Curia. In actual practice they do not expire, as a rule, at the death of the pope nor of the bishop to whom they were given, but pass on to those who take his place (the vicar capitular, the administrator, or succeeding bishop). Faculties granted for a fixed period of time, or a limited number of cases, cease when the period or number has been reached; but while awaiting their renewal the bishop, unless culpably negligent, may continue to use them provisionally. A bishop can use his habitual faculties only in favour of his own subjects. The matrimonial discipline of the Decree "Ne temere" (2 Aug., 1907) contemplates as such all persons having a true canonical domicile, or continuously resident for one month within his territory, also vagi, or persons who have no domicile anywhere and can claim no continuous stay of one month. When a matrimonial impediment is common to both parties the bishop, in dispensing his own subject, dispenses also the other.

(C) Vicars Capitular and Vicars-General

A vicar capitular, or in his place a lawful administrator, enjoys all the dispensing powers possessed by the bishop in virtue of his ordinary jurisdiction or of delegation of the law; according to the actual discipline he enjoys even the habitual powers which had been granted the deceased bishop for a fixed period of time or for a limited number of cases, even if the indult should have been made out in the name of the Bishop of N. Considering the actual praxis of the Holy See, the same is true of particular indults (see below). The vicar-general has by virtue of his appointment all the ordinary powers of the bishop over prohibent impediments, but requires a special mandate to give him common-law faculties for diriment impediments. As for habitual temporary faculties, since they are now addressed to the ordinary, they belong also ipso facto to the vicar-general while he holds that office. He can also use particular indults when they are addressed to the ordinary, and when they are not so addressed the bishop can always subdelegate him, unless the contrary be expressly stated in the indult.

(D) Parish Priests and Other Ecclesiastics

A parish priest by common law can dispense only from an interdict laid on a marriage by him or by his predecessor. Some canonists of note accord him authority to dispense from secret impediments in what are called embarrassing (perplexi) cases, i. e. when there is no time for recourse to the bishop, but with the obligation of subsequent recourse ad cautelam, i. e. for greater security; a similar authority is attributed by them to confessors. This opinion seems yet gravely probable, though the Penitentiaria continues to grant among its habitual faculties a special authority for such cases and restricts somewhat its use.

(2) Particular Indults of Dispensation

When there is occasion to procure a dispensation that exceeds the powers of the ordinary, or when there are special reasons for direct recourse to the Holy See, procedure is by way of supplica (petition) and private rescript. The supplica need not necessarily be drawn up by the petitioner, nor even at his instance; it does not, however, become valid until he accepts it. Although, since the Constitution "Sapienti", all the faithful may have direct recourse to the Congregations, the supplica is usually forwarded through the ordinary (of the person's birthplace, or domicile, or, since the Decree "Ne temere", residence of one of the petitioners), who transmits it to the proper Congregation either by letter or through his accredited agent; but if there is question of sacramental secrecy, it is sent directly to the Penitentiaria, or handed to the bishop's agent under a sealed cover for transmission to the Penitentiaria. The supplica ought to give the names (family and Christian) of the petitioners (except in secret cases forwarded to the Penitentiaria), the name of the Ordinary forwarding it, or the name of the priest to whom, in secret cases, the rescript must be sent; the age of the parties, especially in dispensations affecting consanguinity and affinity; their religion, at 1east when one of them is not a Catholic; the nature, degree, and number of all impediments (if recourse is had to the Congregatio de Disciplinâ Sacramentorum or to the Holy Office in a public impediment, and to the Penitentiaria at the same time in a secret one, it is necessary that the latter should know of the public impediment and that recourse has been had to the competent Congregation). The supplica must, moreover, contain the causes set forth for granting the dispensation and other circumstances specified in the Propaganda Instruction of 9 May, 1877 (it is no longer necessary, either for the validity or liceity of the dispensation, to observe the paragraph relating to incestuous intercourse, even when probably this very thing had been alleged as the only reason for granting the dispensation). When there is question of consanguinity in the second degree bordering on the first, the supplica ought to be written by the bishop's own hand. He ought also to sign the declaration of poverty made by the petitioners when the dispensation is sought from the Penitentiaria in formâ pauperum; when he is in any way hindered from so doing he is bound to commission a priest to sign it in his name. A false declaration of poverty henceforth does not invalidate a dispensation in any case; but the authors of the false statement are bound in conscience to reimburse any amount unduly withheld (regulation for the Roman Curia, 12 June, 1908). For further information on the many points already briefly described the reader is referred to the special canonical works, wherein are found all necessary directions as to what must be expressed so as to avoid nullity. When a supplica is affected (in a material point) by obreption or subreption it becomes necessary to ask for a so-called "reformatory decree" in case the favour asked has not yet been granted by the Curia, or for the letters known as "Perinde ac valere" if the favour has already been granted. If, after all this, a further material error is discovered, letters known as "Perinde ac valere super perinde ac valere" must be applied for. See Gasparri, "Tractatus de matrimonio" (2nd ed., Rome, 1892), I, no. 362.

Dispensation rescripts are generally drawn up in formâ commissâ mixtâ, i. e. they are entrusted to an executor who is thereby obliged to proceed to their execution, if he finds that the reasons are as alleged (si vera sint exposita). Canonists are divided as to whether rescripts in formâ commissâ mixtâ contain a favour granted from the moment of their being sent off, or to be granted when the execution actually takes place. Gasparri holds it as received practice that it suffices if the reasons alleged be actually true at the moment when the petition is presented. It is certain, however, that the executor required by Penitentiaria rescripts may safely fulfil his mission even if the pope should die before he had begun to execute it. The executor named for public impediments is usually the ordinary who forwards the supplica and for secret impediments an approved confessor chosen by the petitioner. Except when specially authorized the person delegated cannot validly execute a dispensation before he has seen the original of the rescript. Therein it is usually prescribed that the reasons given by the petitioners must be verified. This verification, usually no longer a condition for valid execution, can be made, in the case of public impediments, extra-judicially or by subdelegation. In foro interno it can be made by the confessor in the very act of hearing the confessions of the parties. Should the inquiry disclose no substantial error, the executor proclaims the dispensation, i. e. he makes known, usually in writing, especially if he acts in foro externo, the decree which dispenses the petitioners; if the rescript authorizes him, he also legitimizes the children. Although the executor may subdelegate the preparatory acts, he may not, unless the rescript expressly says so, subdelegate the actual execution of the decree, unless he subdelegates to another ordinary. When the impediment is common to, and known to, both parties, execution ought to be made for both; wherefore, in a case in foro interno, the confessor of one of the parties hands over the rescript, after he has executed it, to the confessor of the other. The executor ought to observe with care the clauses enumerated in the decree, as some of them constitute conditions sine quâ non for the validity of the dispensation. As a rule, these clauses affecting validity may be recognized by the conditional conjunction or adverb of exclusion with which they begin (e. g. dummodo, "provided that"; et non aliter, "not otherwise"), or by an ablative absolute. When, however, a clause only prescribes a thing already of obligation by law it has merely the force of a reminder. In this matter also it is well to pay attention to the stylus curiœ, i. e. the legal diction of the Roman Congregations and Tribunals, and to consult authors of repute.

(3) Causes for Granting Dispensations

Following the principles laid down for dispensations in general, a matrimonial dispensation granted without sufficient cause, even by the pope himself, would be illicit; the more difficult and numerous the impediments the more serious must be the motives for removing them. An unjustified dispensation, even if granted by the pope, is null and void, in a case affecting the Divine law; and if granted by other bishops or superiors in cases affecting ordinary ecclesiastical law. Moreover, as it is not supposable that the pope wishes to act illicitly, it follows that if he has been moved by false allegations to grant a dispensation, even in a matter of ordinary ecclesiastical law, such dispensation is invalid. Hence the necessity of distinguishing in dispensations between motive or determining causes (causœ motivœ) and impulsive or merely influencing causes (causœ impulsivœ). Except when the information given is false, still more when he acts spontaneously (motu proprio)and "with certain knowledge", the presumption always is that a superior is acting from just motives. It may be remarked that if the pope refuses to grant a dispensation on a certain ground, an inferior prelate, properly authorized to dispense, may grant the dispensation in the same case on other grounds which in his judgment are sufficient. Canonists do not agree as to whether he can grant it on the identical ground by reason of his divergent appreciation of the latter's force.

Among the sufficient causes for matrimonial dispensations we may distinguish canonical causes, i. e. classified and held as sufficient by the common law and canonical jurisprudence, and reasonable causes. i. e. not provided for nominally in the law, but deserving of equitable consideration in view of circumstances or particular cases. An Instruction issued by Propaganda (9 May, 1877) enumerates sixteen canonical causes. The "Formulary of the Dataria" (Rome, 1901) gives twenty-eight, which suffice, either alone or concurrently with others, and act as a norm for all sufficient causes. They are: smallness of place or places; smallness of place coupled with the fact that outside it a sufficient dowry cannot be had; lack of dowry; insufficiency of dowry for the bride; a larger dowry; an increase of dowry by one-third; cessation of family feuds; preservation of peace; conclusion of peace between princes or states; avoidance of lawsuits over an inheritance, a dowry, or some important business transaction; the fact that a fiancée is an orphan; or has the care of a family; the age of the fiancée over twenty-four; the difficulty of finding another partner, owing to the fewness of male acquaintance, or the difficulty the latter experience in coming to her home; the hope of safeguarding the faith of a Catholic relation; the danger of a mixed marriage; the hope of converting a non-Catholic party; the keeping of property in a family; the preservation of an illustrious or honourable family; the excellence and merits of the parties; defamation to be avoided, or scandal prevented; intercourse already having taken place between the petitioners, or rape; the danger of a civil marriage; of marriage before a Protestant minister revalidation of a marriage that was null and void; finally, all reasonable causes judged such in the opinion of the pope (e. g. the public good), or special reasonable causes actuating the petitioners and made known to the pope, i. e. motives which, owing to the social status of the petitioners, it is opportune should remain unexplained out of respect for their reputation. These various causes have been stated in their briefest terms. To reach their exact force, some acquaintance is necessary with the stylus curiœ and the pertinent works of reputable authors, always avoiding anything like exaggerated formalism. This list of causes is by no means exhaustive; the Holy See, in granting a dispensation, will consider any weighty circumstances that render the dispensation really justifiable.

(4) Costs of Dispensations

The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, cap. v, De ref. matrim.) decreed that dispensations should be free of all charges. Diocesan chanceries are bound to conform to this law (many pontifical documents, and at times clauses in indults, remind them of it) and neither to exact nor accept anything but the modest contribution to the chancery expenses sanctioned by an Instruction approved by Innocent XI (8 Oct., 1678), and known as the Innocentian Tax (Taxa Innocentiana). Rosset holds that it is also lawful, when the diocese is poor, to demand payment of the expenses it incurs for dispensations. Sometimes the Holy See grants ampler freedom in this matter, but nearly always with the monition that all revenues from this source shall be employed for some good work, and not go to the diocesan curia as such. Henceforth every rescript requiring execution will state the sum which the diocesan curia is authorized to collect for its execution.

In the Roman Curia the expenses incurred by petitioners fall under four heads:

• (a) expenses (expensœ) of carriage (postage, etc.), also a fee to the accredited agent, when one has been employed. This fee is fixed by the Congregation in question;
• (b) a tax (taxa) to be used in defraying the expenses incurred by the Holy See in the organized administration of dispensations;
• (c) the componendum, or eleemosynary fine to be paid to the Congregation and applied by it to pious uses;
• (d) an alms imposed on the petitioners and to be distributed by themselves in good works.

The moneys paid under the first two heads do not affect, strictly speaking, the gratuity of the dispensation. They constitute a just compensation for the expenses the petitioners occasion the Curia. As for the alms and the componendum, besides the fact that they do not profit the pope nor the members of the Curia personally, but are employed in pious uses, they are justifiable, either as a fine for the faults which, as a rule, give occasion for the dispensation, or as a check to restrain a too great frequency of petitions often based on frivolous grounds. And if the Tridentine prohibition be still urged, it may be truly said that the pope has the right to abrogate the decrees of councils, and is the best judge of the reasons that legitimize such abrogation. We may add that the custom of tax and componendum is neither uniform nor universal in the Roman Curia.

I. Dispensations in General: SUAREZ, De legibus (Naples, 1882), Bk. VI, x sqq., and Opera Omnia (Paris, 1856), VI; PYRRHUS CORRADIUS, Praxis dispensationum apostolicarum (Venice, 1699); KONINGS-PUTZER, Commentarium in facultates apostolicas (New York, 1898), pt. I; the commentators on the Decretals, especially SCHMALZGRUEBER, Jus ecclesiasticum universale (Rome, 1843), Bk. I. tit. ii; WERNZ, Jus decretalium (Rome, 1905), I, tit. iv, 138; VON SCHERER, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts (Graz, 1898), I, 172; HINSCHIUS. System d. kath. Kirchenr. (Berlin, 1869), I. 744, 789; the moral theologies, under the treatise De legibus, particularly ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, Theologia Moralis (Rome, 1905), I, iv, Dub. 4; D'ANNIBALE, Summula Theologiœ Moralis (Rome, 1908), I, tr. iii, 220; BALLERINI, Opus Morale (Prato, 1889), I, 363; OJETTI, Synopsis rerum moralium et juris pontificii (Rome, 1904), s. v. Dispensatio; THOMASSIN, Ancienne et nouvelle discipline de l'Eglise touchant les bénéfices (Paris, 1725), II, p. II, 1, 3, xxiv-xxix; STIEGLER, Dispensation, Dispensationwesen, und Dispensationsrecht in his Kirchenrecht (Mainz, 1901). I, and in Archiv f. kath. Kirchenr., LXXVII, 3; FIEBAG, De indole ac virtute dispensationum secundum principia jur. canonici (Breslau, 1867).

II. Matrimonial Dispensations: PYRRHUS CORRADIUS, op. cit.; DE JUSTIS, De dispens. matrim. (Venice, 1769); GIOVINE, De dispens. matrim. (Naples, 1863); PLANCHARD, Dispenses matrim. (Angoulème, 1882); FEIJE, De imped. et dispens. matrim. (Louvain, 1885); ZITELLI, De dispens. matrim. (Rome, 1887); VAN DE BURGT, De dispens. matrim. (Bois-le-Duc, 1865); POMPEN, De dispens. et revalidatione matrim. (Amsterdam, 1897); ROUSSET, De sacramento matrimonii (Saint-Jean de Maurienne, 1895), IV, 231; KONINGS-PUTZER, Op. cit., 174 sqq., 376 sqq.; SANCHEZ, De s. matrimonii sacramento (Viterbo, 1739), Bk. VIII; GASPARRI, Tract. canonicus de matrimonio (Paris, 1892), I, iv, 186; MANSELLA, De imped. matrim. (Rome, 1881), 162; LEITNER, Lehrb. des kath. Eherechts (Paderborn, 1902), 401; SCHNITZER, Kath. Eherecht (Freiburg, 1898), 496; SANTILEITNER, Prœlectiones juris canonici (Ratisbon, 1899), IV, appendix I; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1908), IV, tit. xxix FREISEN Geschichte des kanon. Eherechts bis zum Verfall der Glossenlitteratur (Tübingen, 1888), and in Archiv für kath. Kirchenr., LXXVII, 3 sqq., and LXXVIII, 91; ESMEIN, Le mariage en droit canonique (Paris, 1891), II, 315; ZHISMAN, Das Eherecht der orient. Kirche (Vienna, 1864), 190, 712.

JULES BESSON.

Dispersion of the Apostles

(Lat. Divisio Apostolorum), a feast in commemoration of the missionary work of the Twelve Apostles. It is celebrated as a double major on 15 July. The first vestige of this feast is found in the sequence composed for it by a certain Godescalc (d. 1098) while a monk of Limburg on the Haardt; he also introduced this feast at Aachen, when provost of the church of Our Lady. The sequence is authentic beyond doubt. It is next mentioned by William Durandus, Bishop of Mende (Rationale Div. Off. 7.15) in the second half of the thirteenth century. Under the title, "Dimissio", "Dispersio", or Divisio Apostolorum" it was universally celebrated during the Middle Ages in Spain and Italy. The object of the feast (so Godescalcus) is to commemorate the departure (dispersion) of the Apostles from Jerusalem for the various parts of the world, some fourteen years after the Ascension of Christ. According to Durandus some of his contemporaries honoured this feast the (apocryphal) division of the relics (bodies) of St. Peter and St. Paul by St. Sylvester. The feast is now kept with solemnity by modern missionary societies, in Germany and Poland, also in some English and French dioceses and in the United States by the ecclesiastical provinces of St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Dubuque, and Santa Fé.

F.G. HOLWECK

Heinrich von Dissen

Born 18 Oct., 1415, at Osnabrück, in Westphalia; died at Cologne, 26 Nov., 1484. After studying philosophy and theology at Cologne under Heinrich von Gorinchem (Gorkum), a celebrated divine of that time and vice-chancellor of the university, he became a monk in the Carthusian monastery of the same place, and took his solemn vows 14 Jan., 1437. He remained there all his life, which was a very laborious one, for he read much, copied many books for the library of the monastery, and composed a good many works. He was appointed subprior 23 March, 1457, and continued in that office until his death. His literary productions, all in Latin, comprise commentaries on the Psalms, on the Apocalypse, on the Gospels of Sundays and Festivals, on the Creed of St. Athanasius, on the Lord's Prayer. and a great number of sermons and homilies, treatises, and devotional writings, such as "De Sacerdotii dignitate", "De multiplici bonorum verecundia", "Quo pacto hæreticorum fraudes deprehendi queant", "Expositio in totum Missale", "Expositio Antiphonarii", "Consolationes in Cantica Canticorum", "De XIII mansionibus", etc. It does not appear that any of these works have ever been printed.

Le Vasseur, Ephemerides Ord. Cartus (Montreuil, 1892), IV, 434; Petreius, Bibliotheca Cartus. (Cologne, 1609); Hurter, Nomenclator (Innsbruck, 1899), IV, 911.

EDMUND GURDON

Abbey of Dissentis

A Benedictine monastery in the Canton Grisons in eastern Switzerland, dedicated to Our Lady of Mercy. Tradition ascribes its foundation to Sts. Placid and Sigebert, in the year 614, but Mabillon places the date two years earlier. The history of the abbey has been somewhat chequered, but it has at times risen to positions of great importance and influence. It was destroyed by the Avars in 670, when its abbot and thirty monks suffered martyrdom, but was rebuilt by Charles Martel and Abbot Pirminius in 711. Charlemagne visited the abbey on his return journey from Rome in 800 and bestowed upon it many benefactions. Abbot Udalric I (1031-1055) was the first of its superiors to be made a prince of the empire, which dignity was subsequently held by several other of its abbots; many of them also became bishops of the neighbouring sees. In 1581 the abbey was honoured by a visit from St. Charles Borromeo. After enjoying independence for a thousand years it was incorporated into the newly formed Swiss Congregation in 1617, since which date it has, in common with the other five Benedictine abbeys of Switzerland, been subject to the jurisdiction of the president of that Congregation. In 1799 it was burned and plundered by the soldiers of Napoleon's army, when amongst other valuable treasures, a seventh century manuscript chronicle of the abbey perished. The printing press that had been set up in 1729 was also destroyed at the same time, but much of the melted type and other metal was saved and from it were made the pipes of the organ of St. Martin's church at Dissentis, which is still in use. The abbey was rebuilt by Abbot Anselm Huonder, the last of its superiors to enjoy the rank and title of Prince of the Empire. During the nineteenth century the monastery suffered greatly from misfortunes of various kinds, and so great was the relaxation of discipline in consequence that its recovery was almost despaired of. Abbot Paul Birker came from his abbey of St. Boniface at Munich to assist in restoring regular observance, but so little success attended his efforts that he left Dissentis in 1861 and returned to Munich as a simple monk. The abbey has, however, survived those evil times and is in a satisfactory and flourishing condition. Dom Benedict Prevost, the eightieth who has ruled over its fortunes, was abbot in 1908 of a community of between thirty and forty monks, who, among their other duties, served five public oratories and conducted successfully a gymnasium of nearly a hundred boys.

Mabillon, Annales Ordinis Sancti Benedicti (Paris, 1703-1739); Yepez, Chronicon Generale Ord. S. P. N. Benedicti (Cologne, 1603); Brunner, Ein Benediktinerbuch (Würzburg, 1880); Album Benedictinum (St. Vincent's, Penn., 1880).

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Distraction

Distraction (Lat. distrahere, to draw away, hence to distract) is here considered in so far as it is wont to happen in time of prayer and in administering the sacraments. It hardly needs to be noted that the idea of mental prayer and mind-wandering are destructive of each other. So far as vocal prayer is concerned, the want of actual interior attention, if voluntary, will take from its perfection and be morally reprehensible. Distractions, however, according to the commonly accepted teaching, do not rob prayer of its essential character. To be sure one must have had the intention to pray and therefore in the beginning some formal advertence; otherwise a man would not know what he was doing, and his prayer could not be described even as a human act. So long, however, as nothing is done outwardly which would be incompatible with any degree whatever of attention to the function of prayer, the lack of explicit mental application does not, so to speak, invalidate prayer. In other words, it keeps its substantial value as prayer, although, of course, when the dissipation of thought is wilful our addresses to the throne of mercy lose a great deal of efficacy and acceptability. This doctrine has an application, for example, in the case of those who are bound to recite the canonical Office and who are esteemed to have fulfilled their obligation substantially even though their distractions have been abundant and absorbing. Voluntary distractions, that is the conscious deliberate surrender of the mind to thoughts foreign to prayers, are sinful because of the obvious irreverence for God with Whom at such times are presuming to hold intercourse. The guilt, however, is judged to be venial. In the administration of the sacraments their validity cannot be assailed merely because the one who confers them fails to, here and now, think of what he is doing. Provided he has the required intention and posits the essentials of the external rite proper to each sacrament, no matter how taken over he may be by outside reflections, his act is distinctly a human one and as such its value cannot be impugned. Such as state of mind, however, when it is wilful, is sinful, but the guilt is not mortal unless one has thereby laid himself open to the danger of making a mistake in what is regarded as essential for the validity of the sacrament in question.

JOSEPH F. DELANY

Distributions

Distributions (from Lat. distribuere), canonically termed disturbtiones quotidianae, are certain portions of the revenue of a church, distributed to the canons present at Divine service. There are many regulations concerning these distributions in the "Corpus Juris". The latest law on the subject is found in the decrees of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, Cap. iii, De ref.), where it is ordained that bishops have power to set aside one-third of the revenues of officials and dignitaries of cathedral and collegiate chapters and convert this third into distributions for those who satisfy exactly their obligation of being personally present every day at the service to which they are bound. Canons retired on account of their age retain their right to the distributions, as do also capitulars who have received coadjutors, and supernumerary canons who are waiting a regular stall in the chapter. To earn these distributions it is necessary to chant the Office in common, according to the custom of the particular church to which the beneficiary belongs. A mere corporal presence, however, without mental application to the services performed, will not entitle one in conscience to these emoluments.

WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

Dithmar

(Thietmar).

Bishop of Merseburg and medieval chronicler, b. 25 July, 975; d. 1 Dec., 1018.He was the son of Count Siegfried of Walbeck and a relative of the imperial family of the Saxon Ottos. After receiving his education in the monastic schools of Quedlinburg, Bergen, and Magdeburg, he became, in 1002, provost of the monastery of Walbeck which had been founded by his grandfather, was ordained priest in 1003 and consecrated fourth Bishop of Merseburg on 24 April, 1009. As bishop he worked with great energy for the spiritual and temporal restoration of his diocese which had been almost ruined by Giseler, the second Bishop of Merseburg, in his unholy ambition to become Archbishop of Magdeburg in 981. At the same time he fearlessly defended the canonical liberty of ecclesiastical elections against the encroachments of the secular princes.

While Bishop of Merseburg he composed his famous chronicle "Chronicon Thietmari", which comprises in eight books the Saxon Emporers Henry I (called the Fowler), the three Ottos, and Henry II (the Saint). The first three books covering the regns of Henry I and the first two Ottos, are largely based on previous chronicles, most of which are still in extant; the fourth book, comprising the reign of Otto III, contains much original matter; while the remaining four books, which describe the reign of Henry II to the year 1018, are the independent narrative of Dithmar. As councilor of the emporer and participant in many important political transactions, he was well equipped for writing a history of his times. The spirit of sincerity which pervades his chonical is abundant compensation for the barbarous expressions which occasionally mar the literary style. The last four books, besides being the principal source for Saxon history during the reign of the holy emperor Henry II, contain valuable information, not to be found elsewhere, regarding the contemporary history and civilization of the Slavic tribes east of the river Elbe, especially the Poles and Hungarians. Dithmar's original manuscript, with corrections and additions made by himself, is still preserved at Dresden. A facsimile edition of it was prepared by L. Schmidt (Dresden, 1905). The chronicle was also published by Kurze in "Script. Rer. Germ." (Hanover, 1889), and by Lappenberg in "Mon. Germ. Hist. Script." III, 733-871, whence it was reprinted in Migne, P.L., CXXXIX, 1183-1422. A German translation was made by Laurent (Berlin, 1848, and Leipzig, 1892).

KURZE in N. Archiv. Der Gesellsch. Fur altere deutsche Geschichte (Hanover, 1888), XIV, 59-86; WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (7th ed., 1904), I; HURTER, Nomenclator (3rd ed., Innsbruck, 1903), I, 950 sq; WELTE in Kirchenlex., s.v.

MICHAEL OTT

Dives

(Latin for rich).

The word is not used in the Bible as a proper noun; but in the Middle Ages it came to be employed as the name of the rich man in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Luke, XVI, 19-31. It has often been thought that in this lesson on the use of riches Christ spoke of real persons and events. The "House of Dives" is still pointed out in Jerusalem; but, of course, if such a house ever existed, it must have long since disappeared.

W.S. REILLY

Divination

The seeking after knowledge of future or hidden things by inadequate means. The means being inadequate they must, therefore, the supplemented by some power which is represented all through history as coming from gods or evil spirits. Hence the word divination has a sinister signification. As prophecy is the lawful knowledge of the future divination, its superstitious counterpart, is the unlawful. As magic aims to do, divination aims to know. Divination is practically as old as the human race. It is found in every age and country, among the Egytians, Chaldeans, Hindus, Romans, and Greeks; that tribes of Northern Asia had their shamans, the inhabitants of Africa their mgangas, the Celtic nation their druids, the aborigines of America their medicine-men -- all recognized diviners and wizards. Everywhere divination flourished and nowhere, even to-day, is it completely neglected. Cicero's words were, and apparently always will be, true, that there is no nation, civilized or barbarian, which does not believe that there are signs of the future and persons who interpret them. Cicero divided divination into natural and artificial. Natural (untaught, unskilled) included dreams and oracles in which the diviner was a passive subject of inspiration, and the prediction that from a power supposed to be then and there within him. Artificial (taught, studied) comprised all foretelling from signs found in nature or produced by man. Here the diviner was active, and the divination came apparently from his own skill and observation. This division is almost the same as that given by St. Thomas with respect to the invocation of demons: divination with express invocation of spirits, embracing dreams, portents, or prodigies, and necromacy, and divination with tacit invocation through signs and movements observed in objects in nature, such as stars, birds, figures, etc., or through signs and arrangements produced by man, such as molten lead poured in water, casting of lots, etc. Dreams here mean those expressly prepared and prayed for with hope of intercourse with gods or the dead. Portents or prodigies are unusual and marvellous sights coming from the lower world. Here we are considering artificial divination.

METHODS

The variety of divinatory methods is very great. Scarcely an object or movement in the heavens, on the earth, or in the air or water escaped being metamorphosed into a message of futurity. Add to these the invention of man, and there is a glimpse of the immense entanglement of superstitions in which pagan people groped their way. They can, however, be grouped into three classes, as seen from St. Thomas's division. A detailed list has been given by Cicero, Clement of Alexandria in his "Stromata", and others of the Fathers.

• Under the first class, express invocation, come oneiromancy or divination by dreams; necromancy, by so-called apparitions of the dead or spiritism; apparitions of various kinds, which may be either external or in imagination, as Cajetan observes; Pythonism or by possessed persons, as the Delphic Pythoness; hydromancy, by signs in water; aeromancy, by signs in air; geomancy, by signs in terrestrial substances (geomancy has also another meaning); aruspices, by signs in the entrains of victims, etc.
• The second class, tacit invocation and signs found ready-made in nature, embraces judicial or genethliac astrology, pretending to tell the future through the stars; augury, through the notes of birds, and later covering prediction through their mode of acting, feeding, flying, and also the neighing of horses and sneezing of men, etc.-- with us it comprises all foretelling by signs; by omens, when chance words are turned into signs; chiromancy, when the lines of the hand are read; and many similar modes.
• The third class, tacit invocation and signs prepared by man, includes geomancy from points or lines on paper or pebbles thrown at random; drawing of staws; throwing dice; cutting cards; letting a staff fall or measuring it with the fingers saying, "I will or I will not"; opening a book at random, called Sortes Virgilianae, so much was the Æneid used in this fashion by the Romans; etc. This last transferred to the Bible is still common in Germany and elsewhere. Hypnotism is also used for purposes of divination.

HISTORY

To attempt to trace the origin of divination is a waste of time, since like religion it is universal and indigenous in one form or another. Some nations cultivated it to a higher degree than others, and their influence caused certain modes of divination to spread. By its practice they gained a wide reputation for occult power. Pre-eminent in history stand the Chaldeans as seers as astrologers, but the ancient Egyptians and Chinese were also great adepts in elaborate mysterious rites. Which of them had priority therein is still an open question, though the larger share in the development of divination, especially in connection with celestial phenomena, is attributed to the Chaldeans, a vague term embracing here both Babylonians and Assyrians. In Greece from the earliest historical times are found diviners, some of whose methods came from Asia and from the Etruscans, a people famous for the art. While the Romans had modes of their own, their intercourse with Greece introduced new forms, and principally through these two nations they spread in the South and West of Europe. Before Christianity divination was practised everywhere according to rites native and foreign. In early days priest and diviner were one, and their power was very great. In Egypt the pharaoh was generally a priest; in fact, he had to be initiated into all the secrets of the sacerdotal class, and in Babylonia and Assyria almost every movement of the monarch and his courtiers was regulated by forecasts of the official diviners and astrologers. The cuneiform inscriptions and the papyri are filled with magical formulae. Witness the two treatises, one on terrestrial and the other on celestial phenomena compiled by Sargon several centuries before our era. In Greece where more attention was paid to aerial signs the diviners were held in high esteem and assisted at the public assemblies. The Romans, who placed most reliance in divination by sacrifices, had of official colleges of augurs and aruspices who by an adverse word could postpone the most important business. No war was undertaken, no colony sent out without consulting the gods, and at critical moments the most trifling occurrence, a sneeze or a cough, would be invested with meaning. Alongside all this official divining there were practised secret rites by all kinds of wizards, magicians, wise men, and witches. Chaldean soothsayers and strolling sibyls spread everywhere telling fortunes for gain. Between the regulars and the irregulars there was a very bitter feeling, and as the latter often invoked gods or demons regarded as hostile to the gods of the country, they were regarded as illicit and dangerous and were often punished and prohibited from exercising their art. From time to time in various countries the number and influence of the regular diviners were diminished in account of their pride and oppression, and no doubt at times they in turn may have adroitly mitigated the tyranny of rulers. With an increase of knowledge the fear and respect of the cultivated people for their mysterious powers so decreased that their authority suffered greatly and they became objects of contempt and satire. Cicero's "De Divinatione" is not so much a description of its various forms as a refutaton of them; Horace and Juvenal launched many a keen arrow at diviners and their dupes, and Cato's saying is well known, that he wondered how two augurs could meet without laughing at each other. Rulers, however, retained them and honoured them publicly, the better to keep the people in subjection, and outside classical lands, workers of magic still held sway.

Wherever Christianity went divination lost most of its old-time power, and one form, the natural, ceased almost completely. The new religion forbade all kinds, and after some centuries it disappeared as an official system though it continued to have many adherents. The Fathers of the Church were its vigorous opponents. The tenets of Gnosticism gave it some strength, and neo-Platonism won it many followers. Within the Church itself it proved so strong and attractive to her new converts that synods forbade it and councils legislated against it. The Council of Ancyra (c. xxiv) in 314 decreed five years penance to consulters of diviners, and that of Laodicea (c. xxxvi) about 360, forbade clerics to become magicians or to make amulets, and those who wore them were to be driven out of the Church. A canon (xxxvi) of Orleans 511) excommunicates those who practised divination auguries, or lots falsely called Sortes Sanctorum (Bibliorum), i.e. deciding one's future conduct by the first passage found on opening a Bible. This method was evidently a great favourite, as a synod of Vannes (c. xvi) in 461 held forbidden it to clerics under pain of excommunication, and that of Agde (c. xlii) in 506 condemned it as against piety and faith. Sixtus IV, Sixtus V, and the Fifth Council of Lateran likewise condemned divination. Governments have at times acted with great severity. Constantius decreed the penalty of death for diviners. The authorities may have feared that some would-be prophets might endeavour to fulfil forcibly their predictions about the death of sovereigns. When the races of the North, which swept over the old Roman Empire, entered the Church, it was only to be expected that some of their lesser superstitions should survive. All during the so-called Dark Ages divining arts managed to live in secret, but after the Crusades they were followed more openly. At the time of the Renaissance and again preceding the French Revolution, there was a marked growth of noxious methods. The latter part of the nineteenth century witnessed a strange revival, especially in the United States and England, of all sorts of superstition, necromancy or spiritism being in the lead. Today the number of persons who believe in signs and seek to know the future is much greater than appears on the surface. They abound in communities where dogmatic Christianity is weak.

The natural cause of the rise of divination is not hard to discover. Man has a natural curiosity to know the future, and coupled with this is the desire of personal gain or advantage, some have essayed, therefore, in every age to lift the veil, at least partially. These attempts have at times produced results which cannot be explained on merely natural grounds, they are so disproportionate or foreign to the means employed. They can not be regarded as the direct work of God nor as the effect of any purely material cause; hence they must be attributed to created spirits, and since they are inconsistent with what we know of God, the spirits causing them must be evil. To put the question directly: can man know future events?

Let St. Thomas answer in substance: Future things can be known either in their causes or in themselves.

• Some causes always and necessarily produce their effects, and these effects can be foretold with certainty, as astronomers announce eclipses.
• Other causes bring forth their effects not always and necessarily, but they generally do so, and these can be foretold as well-founded conjectures or sound inferences, like a physician's diagnosis or a weather observer's prediction about rain.
• Finally there is a third class of of causes whose effects depend upon what we call chance or upon man's free will, and these cannot be foretold from their causes. We can only see them in themselves when they are actually present to our eyes. Only God alone, to whom all things are present in His eternity, can see them before their occur. Hence we read in Isaias (41:23), "Show the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that you are gods."

Spirits can know better than men the effects to come from the second class of causes because their knowledge is broader, deeper, and more universal, and many occult powers of nature are known to them. Consequently they can foretell more events and more precisely, just as a physician who sees the causes clearer can better prognosticate about the restoration of health. The difference, in fact, between the first and second classes of causes is due to the limitations of our knowledge. The multiplicity and complexity of cause prevent us from following their effects.

Future contingent things, the effects of the third class, spirits cannot know for certain, except God reveal them, though they may wisely conjecture about them because of their wide knowledge of human nature, their long experience, and their judgents based upon our thoughts as revealed to them by our words, countenances, or acts. Unless we wish to deny the value of human testimony, it cannot be doubted that diviners foretold some contingent things correctly and magicians produced at times superhuman effects. The very survival of divination for so many centuries would otherwise be inexplicable and its role in history an insoluble problem. On religious grounds to say that divination and kindred arts were complete impostures would be to contradict Scripture. In it we read laws forbidding magic, we have facts like the deeds of Jannes and Mambres before Pharaoh, and we have a declaration of God showing it possible for a sign or wonder to be foretold by false prophets and to come to pass (Deuteronomy 13:1-12). But, except when God gave them knowledge, their ignorance of the future resulted in the well-known ambiguity of the oracles.

Attempts to give artificial divination a merely natural basis have not succeeded. Chrysippus (de Divinatione, ii, 63) spoke about a power in man to recognize and interpret signs, and Plutarch (de Oraculis) wrote on the special qualifications an augur should have and the nature of the signs, but a preternatural influence was recognized in the end. Some modes, may have been natural in their origin, especially when necessary causes were concerned, and many a prediction made without occult intervention, but these must have been comparatively rare, for the client, if not always the seer, generally believed in supernatural assistance. That some analogy may be traced between an eagle and victory, an owl and sadness--though to the Athenians a welcome omen--and that to lose a tooth is to lose a friend, may readily be admitted, but to try to connect these with future contingent events would be to reason badly from a very slight analogy, just as to stab an image, to injure the person it represents, would be to mistake an ideal connection for a real one. Human instinct demanded a stronger foundation and found it in the belief in an intervention of some supernatural agency. Reason demands the same. A corporeal sign is either an effect of the same cause of which it is a sign, as smoke of fire, or it proceeds from the same cause as the effect which it signifies as the falling of the barometer foretells rain, i.e., the change in the instrument and the change in the weather come from the same cause. Man's future actions and signs in nature stand in no such relation. The sign is not an effect of his future act; neither do the sign and his act proceed from the same cause. The other kinds of signs from the living creatures can be passed over by almost the same reasoning. From those who believed in fatalism, or pantheism or that man, gods, and nature were all in close communion, or that animals and plants were divinities, a belief in omens and auguries of all kinds might be expected (see ANIMISM). Everywhere, as a matter of fact, divination and sacrifice were so closely connected that no strict line could have been drawn in practice between divination with and without express invocation of gods or demons. The client came to offer sacrifice, and the priest, the diviner, tried to answer all his questions, while the private wizards boasted of their "familiar spirits".

THEOLOGICAL ASPECT

From a theological standpoint divination supposes the existence of devils who have great natural powers and who, actuated by jealousy of man and hatred of God, ever seek to lessen his glory and to draw man into perdition, or at least to injure him bodily, mentally, and spiritually. Divination is not, as we have seen, foretelling what comes from necessity or what generally happens, or foretelling what God reveals or what can be discovered by human effort, but it is the usurpation of knowledge of the future, i.e. arriving at it by inadequate or improper means. This knowledge is a prerogative of Divinity and so the usurper is said to divine. Such knowledge may not be sought from the evil spirits except rarely in exorcisms. Yet every divination is from them either because they are expressly invoked or they mix themselves up in these vain searchings after the future that they may entangle men in their snares. The demon is invoked tacitly when anyone tries to acquire information through means which he knows to be inadequate, and the means are inadequate when neither from their own nature nor from any Divine promise are they capable of producing the desired effect. Since the knowedge of futility belongs to God alone, to ask it directly or indirectly from demons is to attribute to them Divine perfection, and to ask their aid is to offer them a species of worship; this is superstition and a rebellion against the providence of God Who has wisely hidden many things from us. In pagan times when divining sacrifice was offered it was idolatry, and even now divination is a kind of demonolatry or devil worship (d'Annibale). All participation in such attempts to attain knowledge is derogatory to dignity of a Christian, and opposed to his love and trust in Providence, and militates against the spread of the Kingdom of God. Any method of divination with direct invocation of spirits is grievously sinful, and worse still if such intervention ensues; with tacit invocation divination is in itself a grievous sin, though in practice, ignorance, simplicity, or want of belief may render it venial. If, however, notwithstanding the client's disbelief the diviner acts seriously, the client cannot be easily excused from grievously sinful cooperation. If in methods apparently harmless strong suspicion of evil intervention arises it would be sinful to continue if only a doubt arise as to the natural or diabolical character of the effect protest should be made against the intervention of spirits; if in doubt as to whether it be from God or Satan, except a miraculous act be sought (which would be extremely rare), it should be discontinued under pain of sin. A protestation of not wishing diabolical interference in modes of divination where it is expressly or tacitly expected is of no avail, as actions speak louder than words. A scientific investigator in doubt about the adequacy of the means can experiment to see if such superhuman intervention be a fact, but he should clearly express his opposition to all diabolical assistance. The divining-rod, if used only for metals of water, may perhaps be explained naturally; if used for detecting guilty persons, or things lost or stolen as such (which may be metals), it is certainly a tacit method. To believe in most of the popular signs simply ignorance or weakness of mind (see SUPERSTITION).

DIVINATION IN THE BIBLE

The Hebrews coming from Egypt -- a land teeming with diviners -- and dwelling in a country surrounded by superstitious tribes, would have their inborn desire for foreknowledge intensified by the spirit of the times and their environments; but God forbade them repeatedly to have anything to do with charmers, wizards, diviners, necromancers, etc., all of whom were abomination in His sight (Deut., xviii, 10, 11). The ideal was in Balaam's day when "there is no soothsaying in Jacob, nor divination in Israel" (Numbers 23:23), and to preserve this, the soul that went aside after diviner God declared He would destroy (Lev., xx, 6) and the man or woman in whom there was a divining spirit was to be stoned to death (Lev., xx, 27). God, however, as St. Chrysostom puts it, humoured the Hebrews like children, and to preserve them from excessive temptation, lots were allowed under certain conditions (Jos., vii, 14; Num., xxvi, 55; Prov., xvi, 33; in N.T. See also LOTS). Hebrew seers were permitted to answer when it pleased Him (Origen, c. Cels. I, xxxvi, xxxvii), prophets might be consulted on private affairs (I K. ix. 6), and the high priest could respond in greater matters by the Urim and Thummim. Gifts were offered to seers and prophets when consulted, but the great prophets accepted no reward when they acted as God's representatives (IV K., v. 20). When the Hebews fell into idolatry, divination, which always accompanied idolatry, revived and flourished, but all during their history it is evident that secretly and again more openly wrongful arts were used and as a result condemnations were frequent (1 K., xv, 23; IV K., xvii, 17; Zach. x. 2; Is. xliv, 25 etc.). It should be borne in mind that their history is very long one, and when we reflect how completely other nations were given over to all kinds of impious arts and silly observances we shall readily admit that the Hebrews were in comparison remarkably free from superstitions. When later these flourished more strongly and permantly it was during the decay of faith preceding and following the time of Christ (see Jos. Ant. Jud. XX, v, i, viii, 6; Bell. Jud. VI, v, 2). The Talmud shows the downward tendency.

The various methods of divinig and kinds of diviners are not always clearly distinguished in Scripture, the Hebrew words being differently interpreted and sometimes merely synonyms. The following list is based on mainly upon Lesetre's article in Vigouroux's "Dict. de la Bible":--

• Divination by consulting the Teraphim, small household gods of which we first read in the time of Abraham and Laban (Gen. xxxi, 19). How they were consulted is not known. It was apparently Chaldean form, as Laban came from that country. They are met with in Judges, xvii, 5; IV K., xxiii, 24, and elsewhere. They sometimes deceived their inquirers (Zach., x, 2).
• The Hartummim, a name translated by "interpreters" (Vulg. conjectores) in the Douay version (Gen., xli, 8), elsewhere (Dan., ii, 2) by "diviners" (Vulg. arioli) and other names, especially "Chaldeans".
• The Hakamim are the wise men (Vulg. sapientes) of the Bible (Gen., xli, 8), a name given those skilled in divination in Egypt, Idumea (Abd., 8), Persia (Esth., i, 13), Babylon (Jer., 1, 35).
• Qesem or Miqsam designated divination in general and is always used in the Scripture in a bad sense except in Prov., xvi, 10. By it the witch of Endor raised up the dead Samuel (I K., xxviii, 8). "The king of Babylon stood in the highway, at the head of two ways, seeking divination (qesem), shuffling arrows; he inquired of the idols (teraphim), and consulted entrails" (Ezech., xxi, 21). The arrows bore the signs or names of towns, and the first name drawn was the one to be attacked. This was Babylonian mode. The Arabs practised it so: three arrows were prepared and the first inscribed "The Lord wills it", the second "The Lord wills it not", and the third was blank. If the blank came a new drawing followed until an inscribed arrow was taken. The last method mentioned in text quoted was aruspicy (Vulg. exta consuluit).
• Nahash is soothsaying (Vulg. augurium) in the Bible (Num., xxii, 23). The precise method signified by it is in dispute. The versions make it equivalent to divination by the flight of of birds, but this mode, so common among the Greeks and Romans, was apparently not used by the Hebrews except towards the time of Christ. From its derivation, as commonly accepted, it would mean divination by serpents, ophiomancy, but on the other hand it is never in this in the Scriptures. Balaam's divination by animal sacrifices is so termed (Num., xxiv, 1) and also Joseph's (Gen., xliv, 5, 15) which remains a vexed question in spite of Calmet's triumphant solution (Dict. of the Bible, III, p. 30) except reasonable explanation of Grotius be accepted (Hummelauer, Com. in Gen., p. 561).
• Mekashsheph is the magician (Vulg. maleficus) in Ex., vii, 11, and the wizard in Deut, xviii, 10, who not only seeks the secrets of the future but works wonders. St. Paul mentions two of their leaders, Jannes and Mambres, and their modes are styled sorceries (Vulg. veneficia) in IV K., ix, 22 and (Vulg. maleficia) Micheas, v, 11.
• The word 'obh signifies the spirit called and the person calling him, the necromancer. In Deut., xviii, 11, it is expressed by "seeking the truth from the dead" (the best known case is that of the witch of Endor) and elsewhere by Pythons (Is., viii, 19), divining spirits (I K., xxviii, 7). The Septuagint translates the words by "ventriloquist" because when the necromancers failed or wished to deceive the people they muttered as if from under the ground as though spirits so spoke; it recalls Shakespeare's of "squeak and gibber". (Cf. Is., xxix, 4.) A bottle or skin water-bag is 'obh; the use of the word here may come from the diviners containing the spirit or being inflated by it.
• The Yidde 'onim were diviners whom we generally find connected with necromacers, and the two terms are perhaps practically synonymous (I K., xxviii 3; IV K., xxi, 6; etc).
• Divining by Me'onen included apparently many methods: divination by chance words, as when Abraham's servant sought a wife for lsaac (Gen., xxiv, 14; I K., xiv, 9; III K., xx, 33); auguries (Is., xi, 6); observers of dreams (Deut., xviii, 10), etc. There were also modes by charming serpents (Jer., viii, 17), astrology (Is, xlvii, 13), and by consulting the Ephod (I K., xxiii, 9).

In the N.T. diviners are not specifically mentioned except in Acts, xvi, 16, concerning the girl who had a pythonical spirit, but it is altogether likely that Simon Magus (Acts, viii, 9), Elymas (Acts, xiii, 6), and others (II Tim., iii, 13), including the possessors of the magical books burnt at Ephesus (Acts, xix, 19), practised divination and that it is included in the wonders by which Antichrist will seduce many (Apoc., xix, 20). Under the New Law all divination is forbidden because, placed on a higher plane than under the Old Dispensation we are taught not to be solicitous for the morrow (Matt., vi, 34), but to trust Him perfectly Who numbers the very hairs of our heads (Matt., x, 30). In divination, apart from the fraud of the Father of Lies, there was much merely human fraud and endless deception the predictions were generally as vague and as worthless as modern fortune-telling, and the general result then as now favoured vice and injured virtue. (See ASTROLOGY.)

E.P. GRAHAM

Society of Divine Charity

(SOCIETAS DIVINAE CHARITATIS).

Founded at Maria-Martental near Kaisersesch, in 1903 by Josepth Tallmanns for the solution of the social question through the pursuit of agriculture and trades (printing, etc.) as well as by means of intellectual pursuits. The society consists of both priests and laymen.

Tillmanns and Oehmen, Die wahre Lösung der sozialen (Martental, 1905).

Sisters of Divine Charity

Founded at Besançon, in 1799, by a Vincentian Sister, and modelled on the Sisters of Mercy of St. Vincent de Paul. The motherhouse, originally at Naples, is now in Rome, and there are many filial establishments in Italy, in Malta, and Gozzo. The sisters have charge of educational institutions, orphanages, hospitals, and insane asylums.

F.M. RUDGE

Institute of the Divine Compassion

Founded in the City of New York, USA, by the Rt. Rev. Thomas Stanislaus Preston. On 8 September 1869, Father Preston began a semi-weekly gathering of the poor and abject children of the street in one of the most wretched quarters of the city; after this came the opening of a house for the reformation of young girls not yet hardened in vice, and the preservation of children and older girls from the moral danger in which they lived. The founded called it the House of the Holy Family and became its spiritual director. The work was fostered by many prominent Catholic ladies of New York, under the name of The Association for Befriending Children and Young Girls. Foremost among these ladies was Mrs. Mary C.D. Starr (in religion Mother Veronica; d. 9 Aug., 1904), who became the president of the association and devoted all her time and energies to this work of charity under the direction of Father Preston. Seeing the necessity of a religious community which should be trained to this work and perpetuate it, Father Preston compiled a rule of life for those who desired to devote their lives to it. The first draft was written 5 September, 1873, and was observed in its elemental form until 1886, when it was elaborated and obtained the informal approbation of the Archbishop of New York. The constitutions, which are an enlargement of the rule, and represent the norm of living in the institute, were written gradually, as it developed, and reached their completion in 1899. On the 29th of September, 1990, both rule and constitutions received the express canonical aprobation of Archbishop Corrigan of New York. The object of the institute is (1) the reformation of erring girls; and (2) the training, religious, mental, and industrial of girls in moral danger from ignorance, indolence, or waywardness, or dangerous influences. The institute is composed of two classes, choir sisters and little (or lay) sisters. In addition to the House of the Holy Family the sisters are in charge of a training home in New York City. The institute comprises about 40 sisters in charge of 215 girls.

Sisters of Divine Providence

I. SISTERS OF THE DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL

Founded at Molsheim, in Diocese of Strasburg, by Vicar Ludwig Kremp (1783). After the Revolution the community reassembled at Bindernheim and, in 1807, received both ecclesiastical and civil approbation, the former from Archbishop of Strasburg, the latter from Napoleon I. In 1819, the mother-house was definitely located at Rappoltsweiler, and in 1869 the institute received papal confirmation. The congregation has (1908) 1800 members, over 1200 of them teachers in 357 primary schools of Alsace. The sisters have over 44,000 children under instruction; they conduct boarding and day schools, orphan asylums, reformatories, a housekeeping school, a high school for girls, and a deaf and dumb institution. Attached to the novitiate are a teacher's seminary and practice school.

II. THE SOCIETY OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Founded, in 1842, at St. Mauritz near Münster by Eduard Michelis, chaplain and private secretary to archbishop Droste zu Vischering of Cologne. He shared the imprisonment of his Archbishop and on his return went to St. Mauritz, where, with the help of two other priests, he founded an orphan asylum. He selected several teachers whom he sent to the Sisters of Divine Providence at Rappoltsweiler to be trained in the religious life. The rule followed there was adopted with a few alterations by the new community and received episcopal approbation. The congregation took as its special work the care of the poor, neglected, and orphaned children, as well as teaching in general. In 1878 the work of the sisters was interrupted by the Kulturkampf, and they were forced to take refuge at Steyl, Holland. In 1887, when they resumed their work in Germany, the mother-house was removed to Friedrichsburg near Münster, where a boarding and a trade school were opened. In the city of Münster the sisters have charge of the domestic management of five episcopal institution, and in the city and diocese they conduct boarding schools, orphan asylums, protectories, trade schools, elementary schools, Sunday schools, a working women's home (Rheine) and a Magdelan asylum (at Marienburg). In Bremen they direct an elementary school, Sunday school, and orphanage. The congregation has 50 branch houses in Germany, and 14 in Holland, among the latter the convent of St. Joseph at Steyl, that of Maria-Roepaan at Ottersum, and of St. Aloysius at Kessel. In 1895 a colony of sisters went to Brazil, where they now have six institutions. The congregation numbers (1908) 1115 members.

III. SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Founded at Finthen near Mainz (whence they are sometimes called the Finthen Sisters) in 1851 by Bishop Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler. The first superior was sent to the Sisters of Divine Providence at Ribeauvillee, Alsace, to be formed in the religious life, and the rule followed there was made the basis of the new institute, which later received the papal approbation. The congregation was founded primarily for the work of teaching and for the care of the sick so far as consonant with their duties as teachers. The right of corporation was not obtained until 1858, but as early as 1856 the Finthen Sisters had charge of the orphan asylum of Neustadt. At the time of the Kulturkampf they had 21 foundations in the Grand Duchy of Hesse. When they were allowed to resume their activities they devoted themselves less to purely educational work and took charge of hospitals, children's asylums, homes for girls, industrial and housekeeping schools, orphan asylums, servant's homes, endowed infirmaries, and almshouses. Connected with the mother-house at Mainz are 76 branch houses with 730 members, 70 in the Diocese of Mainz, and 6 in that of Limburg. In Mainz the sisters conduct a boarding school with housekeeping and trade courses. At Oberursel they direct the Johannesstift for abandoned children founded by Joannes Janssen. Wherever these sisters have houses they care for the sick in their homes.

IV. SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Mother-house at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., founded in 1876 by six sisters from Mainz (see III), who were later joined by other sisters from Mainz. The congregation now numbers about 200, in charge of 20 schools in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, one in Wheeling and 2 in the Columbus Diocese.

V. CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Founded in Lorraine, 1762, by the Venerable Jean-Martin Moye (b. 1730; d, 1793), priest of the Diocese of Metz, afterwards missionary to China, for "the propagation of the faith, the ensuring of a Christian education to children, especially those of the rural population, for the care of the sick, and other works of mercy". Approved by the Bishop of Metz in 1762, and recommended by the solicitude of his clergy, within six years the congregation had exceeded the limits of his diocese and planted itself on the banks of the Vosges. Marie Morel was the first superior. Suppreseed in 1792, the congregation was re-established after the Revolution; in 1816 the Rules and Constitution were formally approved by Louis XVIII. The mother-house general is at St.-Jean-de-Bassel, in the Diocese of Metz, Lorraine, with establishments in Lorraine, Alsace, Belgium, and the United States. There are about 500 sisters in the Diocese of Metz, and 300 in the Diocese of Strasburg, who direct schools, boarding schools, industrial schools, domestic economy institutes, hospitals, etc. At St-Jean-de-Bassel there is a normal institute devoted exclusively to the training of the young teachers of the congregation, generally 185 in number, and connected with this institute is a model school, all under the supervision of the educational boards of the German Imperial Government. In Belgium there are about 100 sisters. At Pecq, near Tournai, they direct a normal school and a boarding school. Elsewhere they have charge of schools and kindergartens.

Sisters of Divine Providence

Of Kentucky; incorporated American provincial house at Mt. St. Martin's convent, Newport, Kentucky. Mother Anna Houlne, superior general (d. 1903) of the congregation succeeded in placing the Sisters of St-Jean-de-Bassel in the foremost ranks of teachers in Alsace-Lorraine, and then, Moye, long to see them labour for the Christian education of youth in America, where she rightly judged the labourers to be few. In 1888 Bishop Maes of Covington, Kentucky, visited the mother-house general at St-Jean-de-Bassel, and arranged to have the sisters introduced into his diocese. Accordingly, in August, 1889, three sisters arrived in Covington and took up residence in one of the historical mansions of northern Kentucky, now know as Mt. St. Martin's convent. The growth of the American branch has necessitated the building of a new convent. In October, 1908, a considerable estate was acquired at Melbourne, Kentucky, the site of a new St. Ann's Convent, where it is designed to erect the new provincial house. Mother Anna visited the American Province in 1892. There are 215 sisters; until 1903 occasional small colonies were added from the mother-house general; about one third of the subjects are American. At Mt. St. Martin's convent are the novitiate and normal school for the province. Teaching is primary object of the sisters. They conduct an academy and many parish schools, an infant asylum, a home for French emigrant and working girls, and a home for the aged. The sisters are working in the Diocese of Covington, Providence, and Cleveland, and the archdioceses of New York, Baltimore, and Cincinnati.

VI. SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE

Founded at Castroville, Texas, U.S.A., 1868, by Sister St. Andrew from the mother-house at St-Jean-de-Bassel, Lorraine, at the instance of Bishop Dubuis of Galveston. In 1896 the mother-house was transferred to San Antonio. The Constitutions were approved by Pope Leo X, 28 May, 1907 (?) The sisters have charge (1908) of 67 schools and academies in Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma.

VII. SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF ST. ANDREW

Founded at Hambourg-la-Forteresse, in 1806, by Father Anton Gapp, "for the Christian instruction of children in the primary schools and higher schools for girls". The congregation received the authorization of the French Government in 1826, and the mother-house was established at Forbach, Lorraine, but in 1839 was removed to Peltre. Destroyed in 1870 by the flames which swept the whole district, it was rebuilt after the close of the Franco-Prussian War. The congregation has now in Lorraine 138 institutions, among them 7 higher schools for girls, 20 trade and several housekeeping schools, and 9 hospitals. In Belgium they have 35 foundations. There are altogether 900 sisters, who teach 17,000 children in Lorraine and 4000 in Belgium.

CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE: Archives and Unpublished Annals of Congregation; Directoire des Soeurs de la Providence (St-Germain-en-Laye, 1858); Weyland, Une ame apotre (Metz, 1901); Marchal, Vie de M. l'Abbe Moye (Paris, 1872).
SISTERS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF ST. ANDREW: HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationem (Paderborn, 1908), III; IDEM in Kirchenlex., s.v. Vorschung.

F.M. RUDGE
SISTER M. THERESIA
SISTER M. CAMILLUS MOTHER MARY FLORENCE

Daughters of Divine Charity

Founded at Vienna, 21 November, 1868, by Franziska Lechner (d. 1894) on the Rule of St. Augustine, and approved by the Holy See in 1884 and definitively confirmed 22 July, 1891. The purpose of the congregation is to furnish girls without positions, shelter, care and the means of obtaining a position, without compensation, likewise to care for servants no longer able to work. The sisters are also engaged in schools, orphan asylums, and kindergartens. The motherhouse and novitiate are at Vienna; the congregation has 36 filial houses, 766 sisters, and 59 postulants.

F.M. RUDGE

Daughters of the Divine Redeemer

Motherhouse at Oedenburg, Hungary; founded in 1863 from the Daughters of the Divine Saviour of Vienna. This congregation has 37 filial houses and 300 sisters, who conduct schools of all kinds and care for the sick.

Society of the Divine Savior

Founded at Rome, 8 Dec., 1881, by Johann Baptist Jordan (b. 1848 at Gartweil im Breisgau), elected superior general as Father Francis Mary of the Cross. The original name, Society of Catholic Instruction, was changed some years after its foundation to the present title. The first papal approbation was granted in the "Decretum laudis" of 27 May 1905. The founder imposed on his congregation, in addition to the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, a fourth of apostolic mission work. The rules and constitution are based largely on those of the Society of Jesus. The habit is black with a black cincture, in which four knots are tied to remind the wearer of his four vows. In tropical countries the habit is white and the cincture is red.

On 13 Dec., 1889, the newly erected Prefecture Apostolic of Assam was placed in charge of the society, which has now 7 principal and 32 dependent stations, served by 13 missionaries, aided by 12 native catechists. The Fathers have published many books in the Khasi dialect, and since September, 1906, a periodical, "Ka iing Khristan". At Lochau, near Bregenz, a German college was established 15 Sept., 1893; in the same year a station was founded at Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.; in 1896 several members began work in Brazil. At present (1908) missions are given in thirteen languages from the various centres. The Salvatorians have establishments in Italy, Sicily, Austria, Poland, Moravia, Galicia, Hungary, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, England, and the United States, Brazil, and Columbia. The congregation numbers 400 members, 175 priests, the rest scholastics, lay brothers, novices, in 35 foundations, of which 28 are Marian Colleges and 7 mission centres.

Among the periodicals issued by the society, in addition to the "Apostel-kalendar" (in German and Hungarian), are the "Nuntius Romanus", "Il Missionario" (in German "der Missionar, since 1907 "Illustrierte Monatshefte furs christl. Haus"; also in Polish), "L'amico dei fanciulli" (in German "Manna fur Kinder"; also in Polish), and the Salvatorianische Mitteilungen" (German and Polish), containing reports of the work of the society. Connected with the society are a Third Order for lay men and women; the "Academia litteratorium", the members of which cooperate with the fathers in the advancement of Catholic knowledge and literature; the Angel Sodality, founded 8 Dec., 1884, for children under fourteen, which has as its organ "L'amico dei fanciulli"., and a membership of 40,000.

Sisters of the Divine Savior

Founded 8 Dec., 1888, by Father Jordan, to supplement the work of the Salvatorian Fathers, and placed under the Third Rule of St. Francis. The mother-house is in Rome and there are stations in Assam (where the sisters conduct 6 orphan asylums), Austria, Hungary, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Sicily, British Burma, and in the United States. They conduct orphan asylums, and schools, and visit the sick in their homes. The congregation numbers about 200.

Daughters of the Divine Savior

Mother-house at Vienna, a branch of the Niederbrunn Sisters of the Most Holy Saviour, establish 1857. The congregation has over 1200 sisters, choir and lay, who care for the sick in hospitals, and in their own homes, and conduct schools for girls, primary and grammer schools, trade schools, kindergartens, etc. The sisters have 72 houses in the Dioceses of Vienna, St. Polten, Seckau, Koniggratz, Brunn, Gran, Raah, and Parenzo-Pola.

HEIMBUCHER, Orden and Kongregationem (Paderborn, 1908); Die Gesellschaft des gottlichen Heilandes (Rome, 1903); MUNZLOHER, Die up. Prafektur Assam (Rome, 1899).

F.M. RUDGE

Society of the Divine Word

(Societas Verbi Divini)

The first German Catholic missionary society established. It was founded in 1875 during the period of the Kulturkampf at Steyl, near Tegelen, Holland, by a priest, Rev. Arnold Janssen (d. 15 January, 1909), for the propagation of the Catholic religion among pagan nations. It is composed of priests and lay brothers. On the completion of their philosophical studies the students make a year of novitiate, at the end of which they take the ordinary vows binding them for three years. Before ordination the members of the society take perpetual vows. The coadjutor brothers renew their vows every three years for nine years, when they take perpetual vows.

The first mission of the society was established in 1882 on Southern Shantung, China, a district containing 158 Catholics and about 10,000,000 pagans. According to the statistics 1906-07, this mission numbered 35,378 Catholics, 36,367 catechumens, 1 seminary with 64 seminarians, 46 European priests, 12 Chinese priests, 13 coadjutor brothers of the society, 3 teaching brothers and 19 nuns. The second mission was founded in Togo, West Africa, in 1892. There were then scarcely a hundred Catholics in the district. In 1906 the mission had a prefect Apostolic, 31 European priests, 12 coadjutor brothers, 14 nuns, 53 native teachers, and 68 mission stations. There were nearly 3000 children attending the schools; the Catholics numbered 3300. The third mission was in German New Guinea. It is a comparatively new colony. Dangerous fevers are common. The natives are Papuans (Negritos). They are all savages, recognizing no form of authority, having no fixed customs, or administration of justice. The greatest difficulty experienced by missioners is the incredible number of languages. Thus in the entire mission district, 467 sq. m., probably more than a hundred languages are spoken. The first Catholic missionaries arrived in German New Guinea in August 1896. At the close of 1906, there were in the mission a prefect Apostolic. 16 European priests, 13 coadjutor brothers, 18 nuns, 1000 native Catholics, and 400 children in the schools.

In the Argentine Republic the society numbers 51 priests, 31 coadjutor brothers, and 41 nuns. They have charge of colleges, seminaries, and of 12 parishes in the four Dioceses of Buenos Aires, La Plata, Santa Fé, and Paraná. Part of the mission district includes the territory once occupied by the famous Jesuit Reductions of Paraguay. The mission was established in 1898. In Brazil there are 39 priests, 14 coadjutor brothers, and 13 nuns. The society also has a mission in the United States, at Shermerville Techny, Cook Co., Illinois. There are 13 priests, and 37 coadjutor brothers in charge of a technical school, and 30 nuns who conduct a home for the aged. In Europe the society has six houses or colleges with 126 priests, 546 coadjutor brothers, and 1089 students for the society. The training convent for the nuns has 231 members. The colleges in Europe are: (1) St. Michael, at Steyl near Tegelen, Holland, founded 8 Sept., 1875. The superior general resides here with 47 priests, 314 coadjutor brothers, and 282 students for the society. (2) Heiligkreuz (Holy Cross) near Neisse, Silesia, founded 24 Oct., 1892. There are 23 priests, 84 coadjutor brothers, and 241 students. (3) St. Wendel, in the Diocese of Trier, with 18 priests, 68 coadjutor brothers, and 185 students. (4) St. Gabriel, near Vienna, established 4 Oct., 1889. There are 26 priests, 370 novices and students of philosophy and theology, and 80 coadjutor brothers. (5) St. Raphael, Rome, with 5 priests and one coadjutor brother. (6) Bischofshofen, near Salzburg in Austria, established 17 Aug., 1904.

Nuns

The Society of the Servants of the Holy Ghost (Societas Servarum Spiritus Sancti) was founded in 1889, at Steyl, Holland, by the Rev. Arnold Janssen. It numbers about 300 nuns who help the fathers in their missions, chiefly by teaching.

HEIMBUCHER, Die Orden und Kongregationen der katholischen Kirche (Paderborn, 1808, III, 510-15).

EB. LIMBROCK

Procopius Divisch

Premonstratensian, b. at Senftenberg, Bohemia, 26 March, 1698; d. at Prenditz, Moravia, 21 December, 1765. He was christened Wenceslaus, but took the name of Procopius when he became a religious. He began his studies at the Znaym Gymnasium and later entered the cloister school of the Premonstratensians at Bruck, Styria. In 1726 he was ordained and soon after became professor of philosophy at the school. His lectures on physics were illustrated by numerous interesting experiments. he received the doctorate in theology at Salzburg in 1733, his thesis being "Tractatus de Dei unitate sub inscriptione (Alpha) et (Omega)". In 1736 he took charge of the little parish of Prenditz near Znaym. Here he had sufficient leisure for work and experiment in his favourite subjects, hydraulics and electricity, constructing the necessary instruments himself. His fame soon spread abroad, and he was called to Vienna to repeat his electrical experiments before the Emperor Francis an the Empress Maria Theresa. He was one of the first to apply electricity in the treatment of disease. In 1750, prior to the publication of the French translation of Franklin's letters to Collinson (1751), he knew of the discharging property of pointed rods and applied his knowledge to the performance of curious tricks. The first lightning-rod was erected by Divisch at Prenditz, in 1754, before Franklin's suggestions were known and before they had been carried out elsewhere. Divisch's device is quite different from that proposed by the Philadelphian. He petitioned the emperor in 1755 to put up similar rods all over the country and thus protect the land from lightning. This proposal was rejected on the advice of the mathematicians of Vienna. He also constructed the Denydor (Denis, "Divisch", d'or, "of gold"), a musical instrument, imitating string and wind instruments and producing orchestral effects. His theories are expounded in his published work, "Theoretischer Tractat oder die längst verlangte Theorie von der meteorologischen Electricität" (Tübingen, 1765; Frankfort, 1768; Bohemian tr. Prague, 1899).

PELZL, Abbildungen böhm, and mähr. Gel. (Vienna, 1777); NUSL, Prokop Divis (Prague, 1899); POGGENDORFF, Gesch. d. Physik (Leipzig, 1879).

WILLIAM FOX

Divorce (in Moral Theology)

This subject will be treated here under two distinct heads: First, divorce in moral theology; second, divorce in civil jurisprudence.

The term divorce (divortium, from divertere, divortere, "to separate") was employed in pagan Rome for the mutual separation of married people. Etymologically the word does not indicate whether this mutual separation included the dissolution of the marriage bond, and in fact the word is used in the Church and in ecclesiastical law in this neutral signification. Hence we distinguish between divortium plenum or perfectum (absolute divorce), which implies the dissolution of the marriage bond, and divortium imperfectum (limited divorce), which leaves the marriage bond intact and implies only the cessation of common life (separation from bed and board, or in addition separation of dwelling-place). In civil law divorce means the dissolution of the marriage bond; divortium imperfectum is called separation (séparation de corps).

The Catholic doctrine on divorce may be summed up in the following propositions:

• In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated;
• Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute divorce under certain circumstances in favour of the Faith;
• Christian marriage before consummation can be dissolved by solemn profession in a religious order, or by an act of papal authority;
• Separation from bed and board (divortium imperfectum) is allowed for various causes, especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresy on the part of husband or wife.

These propositions we shall explain in detail.

A. In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by Christ Himself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can never be an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has been consummated.

1. The Original Indissolubility of Marriage and Its Restoration by Christ.

The inadmissibility of absolute divorce was ordained by Christ Himself according to the testimony of the Apostles and Evangelists: "Whoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mark, x, 11, 12. -Cf. Matt., xix, 9; Luke, xvi, 18). In like manner, St. Paul: "To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife" (I Cor., vii, 10, 11). In these words Christ restored the original indissolubility of marriage as it had been ordained by God in the Creation and was grounded in human nature. This is expressly stated by Him against the Pharisees, who put forward the separation allowed by Moses: "Moses by reason of hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives"": but from the beginning it was not so" (Matt., xix, 8); "He who made man from the beginning, made them male and female. And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matt., xix, 4-6). The indissolubility of all marriage, not merely of Christian marriage, is here affirmed. The permanence of marriage for the whole human race according to natural law is here confirmed and ratified by a Divine positive ordinance.

No Catholic can doubt that even according to the natural law of marriage is in a certain sense indissoluble. The following proposition is condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX (Proposition LXVII): "According to the natural law, the bond of marriage is not indissoluble, and in certain cases divorce in the strict sense can be sanctioned by civil authority." The meaning of this condemnation is clear from the document whence it has been taken. This is the papal Brief ("Ad apostolicæ sedis fastigium", 22 August, 1851, in which several works of the Turin professor, J. N. Nuytz, and a series of propositions defended by him were condemned, as is expressly said, "deApostolicæ potestatis plenitudine". A certain dissolubility of marriage whenever contracted must therefore be admitted, even according to the natural law, at least in the sense that marriage, unlike other contracts, may not be dissolved at the pleasure of the contracting parties. Such dissolubility would be in direct contradiction with the essential purpose of marriage, the proper propagation of the human race, and the education of the children. That in exceptional cases, in which continued cohabitation would nullify the essential purpose of marriage, the dissolubility may nevertheless not be permitted, can hardly be proved as postulated by the natural law from the primary purpose of marriage. However, even such dissolubility would not be in accord with the secondary purposes of marriage, and it is therefore regarded by St. Thomas (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, Q, ii, a. 1) and most Catholic scholars as against the secondary demands of the natural law. In this sense, marriage, considered merely according to the natural law, is intrinsically indissoluble. That it is also extrinsically indissoluble, i.e. that it cannot be dissolved by any authority higher than the contracting parties, cannot be asserted without exception. Civil authority, indeed, even according to the natural law, has no such right of dissolving marriage. The evil consequences which would follow so easily, on account of the might of passion, in case the civil power could dissolve marriage, seem to exclude such a power; it is certainly excluded by the original Divine positive law: "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matt., xix, 6). However, that part of the proposition condemned by Pius IX, in which it is asserted, "And in certain cases divorce in the strict sense can be sanctioned by civil authority", need not necessarily be understood of marriage according to the purely natural law, because Nuytz, whose doctrine was condemned, asserted that the State had this authority in regard to Christian marriages, and because the corresponding section of the Syllabus treats of the errors about Christian marriage. (Cf. Schrader, Der Papst und die modernen Ideen, II (Vienna, 1865), p. 77. ]

2. Divorce among the Israelites

In spite of the Divine law of the indissolubility of marriage, in the course of time divorce, in the sense of complete dissolution of marriage, became prevalent to a greater or less extent among all nations. Moses found this custom even among the people of Israel. As lawgiver, he ordained in the name of God (Deut., xxiv, 1): "If a man take a wife, and have her, and she find not favour in his eyes, for some uncleanness: he shall write a bill of divorce, and shall give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." The rest of the passage shows that this divorce was understood as justifying the wife in the marriage with another husband, hence as a complete annulment of the first marriage. Some regard it only as a freedom from penalty, so that in reality the remarriage of the divorced wife was not allowed, and was adultery, because the bond of the first marriage had not been dissolved. This opinion was held by the Master of the Sentences, Peter Lombard (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, 3), St. Bonaventure (IV Sent., dist. xxxiii, art. 3, Q, I), and others. Others again, however, believe that there was a real permission, a dispensation granted by God, as otherwise the practice sanctioned in the law would be blamed as sinful in some part of the Old Testament. Moreover, Christ (loc. cit.) seems to have rendered illicit what was illicit in the beginning, but what had really been allowed later, even though it was allowed "by reason of the hardness of your heart" (St. Thomas, III, Supplem., Q. lxvii, a. 3; Bellarmine, "Controvers. de matrim.", I, xvii; Sanchez, " De matrim.", X, disp. i. n. 7; Palmieri, "De matrimonio christ.", Rome, 1880, 133 sqq.; Wernz, "Jus decretalium", IV, n. 696, not. 12; etc). This second opinion maintains and must maintain that the expression "for some uncleanness" does not mean any slight cause, but a grievous stain, something shameful directed against the purpose of marriage or marital fidelity. A separation at will, and for slight reasons, at the pleasure of the husband, is against the primary principle of the natural moral law, and is not subject to Divine dispensation in such a way that it could be make licit in every case. It is different with separation in serious cases governed by special laws. This, indeed, does not correspond perfectly with the secondary purposes of marriage, but on that account it is subject to Divine dispensation, since the inconvenience to be feared from such a separation can be corrected or avoided by Divine Providence. In the time of Christ there was an acute controversy between the recent, lax school of Hillel and the strict, conservative school of Schammai about the meaning of the phrase Hebrew phrase. Hence the question with which the Pharisees tempted Our Lord: "Is it lawful. . . for every cause?" The putting-away of the wife for frivolous reasons had been sharply condemned by God through the Prophets Micheas (ii, 9) and Malachias (ii, 14), but in later days it became very prevalent. Christ abolished entirely the permission which Moses had granted, even though this permission was strictly limited; He allowed a cause similar to "uncleanness" as reason for putting away the wife, but not for the dissolution of the marriage bond.

3. The Dogmatic Basis and Practical Application of The Complete Dissolubility of Consummated Marriage within the Catholic Church

(a) Its Foundation in Scripture -- The complete exclusion of absolute divorce (divortium perfectum) in Christian marriage is expressed in the words quoted above (Mark, x; Luke, xvi; I Cor., vii). The words in St. Matthew's Gospel (xix, 9), "except it be for fornication", have, however, given rise to the question whether the putting-away of the wife and the dissolution of the marriage bond were not allowed on account of adultery. The Catholic Church and Catholic theology have always maintained that by such an explanation St. Matthew would be made to contradict Sts. Mark, Luke, and Paul, and the converts instructed by these latter would have been brought into error in regard to the real doctrine in Christ. As this is inconsistent both with the infallibility of the Apostolic teaching and the innerancy of Sacred Scripture, the clause in Matthew must be explained as the mere dismissal of the unfaithful wife without the dissolution of the marriage bond. Such a dismissal is not excluded by the parallel texts in mark and Luke, while Paul (I Cor., vii, 11) clearly indicates the possibility of such a dismissal: "And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband". Grammatically, the clause in St. Matthew may modify one member of the sentence (that which refers to the putting-away of the wife) without applying to the following member (the remarriage of the other), though we must admit that the construction is a little harsh. If it means, "Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, commiteth adultery", then, in case of marital infidelity, the wife may be put away; but that, in this case, adultery is not committed by a new marriage cannot be concluded from these words. The following words, "And he that shall marry her that is put away" -- therefore also the woman who is dismissed for adultery -- "committeth adultery", say the contrary, since they suppose the permanence of the first marriage. Moreover, the brevity of expression in Matthew, xix, 9, which seems to us harsh, is explicable, because the Evangelist had previously given a distinct explanation of the same subject, and exactly laid down what was justified by the reason of fornication: "Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the causes of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery" (Matt., v, 32). Here all excuse for remarriage or for the dissolution of the first marriage is excluded. Even the mere dismissal of the wife, if this is done unjustly, exposes her to the danger of adultery and is thus attributed to the husband who has dismissed her -- "he maketh her commit adultery". It is only in the case of marital infidelity that complete dismissal is justified -- "excepting for the cause of fornication". In this case not he, but the wife who has been lawfully dismissed, is the occasion, and she will therefore be responsible should she commit further sin. It must also be remarked that even for Matthew, xix, 9, there is a variant reading supported by important codices, which has "maketh her to commit adultery" instead of the expression "comitteth adultery". This reading answers the difficulty more clearly. (Cf. Knabenbauer, "Comment, in Matt.", II, 144).

Catholic exegesis is unanimous in excluding the permissibility of absolute divorce from Matthew 19, but the exact explanation of the expressions, "except it be for fornication" and "excepting for the cause of fornication", has given rise to various opinions. Does it mean the violation of marital infidelity, or a crime committed before marriage, or a diriment impediment? (See Palmieri, "De matrim. Christ.", 178 sqq.; Sasse, "De sacramentis", II, 418 sqq.) Some have tried to answer the difficulty by casting doubt on the authenticity of the entire phrase of Matthew 19, but the words are in general fully vouched for by the more reliable codices. Also, the greater number, and the best, have "committeth adultery". (See Knabenbauer, loc. cit., and Schanz, "Kommentar über das Evang. d. hl. Matth.", 191, 409.) That absolute divorce is never allowable therefore clear from Scripture, but the argument is cogent only for a consummated marriage. For Christ found His law on the words: "They two shall be in one flesh", which are verified only in consummated marriage. How far divorce is excluded, or can be allowed, before the consummation of the marriage must be derived from other source.

(b) Tradition and the Historical Development in Doctrine and Practice -- The doctrine of Scripture about the illicitness of divorce is fully confirmed by the constant tradition of the Church. The testimonies of the Fathers and the councils leave us no room for doubt. In numerous places they lay down the teaching that not even in the case of adultery can the marriage bond be dissolved or the innocent party proceed to a new marriage. They insist rather that the innocent party must remain unmarried after the dismissal of the guilty one, and can only enter upon new marriage in case death intervenes.

We read in Hermas (about the year 150), "Pastor", mand. IV, I, 6: "Let him put her (the adulterous wife) away and let the husband abide alone; but if after putting away his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery (ed. Funk, 1901). The expression in verse 8, "For the sake of her repentance, therefore, the husband ought not to marry", does not weaken the absolute command, but it gives the supposed reason of this great command. St. Justine Martyr (d. 176) says (Apolog., I, xv, P.G., VI, 349), plainly and without exception: "He that marrieth her that has been put away by another man committeth adultery." In like manner Athenagoras (about 177) in his "Legatio pro christ.", xxxiii (P.G., VI, 965): "For whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, committed adultery"; Tertullian (d. 247), "De monogamiâ", c, ix (P.L., II, 991): "They enter into adulterous unions even when they do not put away their wives, we are not allowed to even marry although we put our wives away"; Clement of Alexandria (d. 217), "Strom.", II, xxiii (P.G., VIII, 1096), mentions the ordinance of Holy Scripture in the following words; "You shall not put away your wife except for fornication, and [Holy Scripture] considers as adultery a remarriage while the other of the separated persons survives." Similar expressions are found in the course of the following centuries both in the Latin and in the Greek Fathers, e.g. St. Basil of Cæsarea, "Epist. can.", ii, "Ad Amphilochium", can. xlviii (P.G., XXXII, 732); St. John Chrysostom, "De libello repud." (P.G., LI, 218); Theodoretus, on I Cor., vii, 39, 40 (P.G., LXXXII, 275); St. Ambrose, "in Luc.", VIII, v, 18 sqq. (P.L., XV, 1855); St. Jerome, Epist, lx (ad Amand.), n. 3 (P.L., XXII, 562); St. Augustine, "De adulterinis conjugiis", II, iv (P.L., XL, 473), etc., etc. The occurrences of passages in some Fathers, even among those just quoted, which treat the husband more mildly in case of adultery, or seem to allow him a new marriage after the infidelity of his spouse, does not prove that these expressions are to be understood of the permissibility of a new marriage, but of the lesser canonical penance and of exemption from punishment by civil law. Or if they refer to a command on the part of the Church, the new marriage is supposed to take place after the death of the wife who was dismissed. This permission was mentioned, not without reason, as a concession for the innocent party, because at some periods the Church's laws in regard to the guilty party forbade forever any further marriage (cf. can. vii of the Council of Compiègne, 757). It is well known that the civil law, even of the Christian emperors, permitted in several cases a new marriage after the separation of the wife. Hence, without contradicting himself, St. Basil could say of the husband, "He is not condemned", and "He is considered excusable" (ep. clxxxviii, can. ix, and Ep. cxcix, can. xxi, in P.G., XXXII, 678, 721), because he is speaking distinctly of the milder treatment of the husband than of the wife with regard to the canonical penance imposed for adultery. St. Epiphanius, who is especially reproached with teaching that the husband who had put away his wife because of adultery or another crime was allowed by Divine law to marry another (Hæres, lix, 4, in P.G., XLI, 1024), is speaking in reality of a second marriage after the death of the divorced wife, and whilst he declares in general that such a second marriage is allowed, but is less honourable, still he makes the exception in regard to this last part in favour of one who had long been separate from his first wife. The other Fathers of the following centuries, in whose works ambiguous or obscure expressions may be found, are to be explained in like manner.

The practice of the faithful was not indeed always in perfect accord with the doctrine of the Church. On account of defective morality, there are to be found regulations of particular synods which permitted unjustifiable concessions. However, the synods of all centuries, and more clearly still the decrees of the popes, have constantly declared that divorce which annulled the marriage and permitted remarriage was never allowed. The Synod of Elvira (A.D. 300) maintains without the least ambiguity the permanence of the marriage bond, even in the case of adultery. Canon ix decreed: "A faithful woman who has left an adulterous husband and is marrying another who is faithful, let her be prohibited from marrying; if she has married, let her not receive communion until the man she has left shall have departed this life, unless illness should make this an imperative necessity" (Labbe, "Concilia", II, 7). The Synod of Arles (314) speaks indeed of counseling as far as possible, that the young men who had dismissed their wives for adultery should take no second wife" (ut, in quantum possil, consilium eis detur); but it declares at the same time the illicit character of such a second marriage, because it says of these husbands, "They are forbidden to marry" (prohibentur nubere, Labbe, II, 472). The same declaration is to be found in the Second Council of Mileve (416), canon xvii (Labbe, IV, 331); the Council of Hereford (673), canon x (Labbe, VII, 554); the Council of Friuli (Forum Julii), in northern Italy (791), canon x (Labbe, IX, 46); all of these teach distinctly that the marriage bond remains even in case of dismissal for adultery, and that new marriage is therefore forbidden.

The following decisions of the popes on this subject deserve special mention: Innocent I, "Epist. ad Exsuper.", c. vi, n. 12 (P.L., XX, 500): "Your diligence has asked concerning those, also, who, by means of a deed of separation, have contracted another marriage. It is manifest that they are adulterers on both sides." Compare also with "Epist. ad Vict. Rothom.", xiii, 15, (P.L., XX, 479): "In respect to all cases the rule is kept that whoever marries another man, while her husband is still alive, must be held to be an adulteress, and must be granted no leave to do penance unless one of the men shall have died." The impossibility of absolute divorce during the entire life of married people could not be expressed more forcibly than by declaring that the permission to perform public penance must be refused to women who remarried, as to a public sinner, because this penance presupposed the cessation of sin, and to remain in a second marriage was to continue in sin.

Besides the adultery of one of the married parties, the laws of the empire recognized other reasons for which marriage might be dissolved, and remarriage permitted, for instance, protracted absence as a prisoner of war, or the choice of religious life by one of the spouses. In these cases, also, the popes pronounced decidedly for the indissolubility of marriage, e.g. Innocent I, "Epist. ad Probum", in P.L. XX, 602; Leo I, "Epist. ad Nicetam Aquil.", in P.L., LIV, 1136; Gregory I, "Epist. ad Urbicum Abb.", in P.L., LXXVII, 833, and "Epist. ad Hadrian. notar.", in P.L., LXXVII, 1169. This last passage, which is found in the "Decretum" of Gratian (C. xxvii, Q, ii, c. xxii), is as follows: "Although the civil law provides that, for the sake of conversion (i.e., for the purpose of choosing the religious life), a marriage may be dissolved, though either of parties be unwilling, yet the Divine law does not permit it to be done." That the indissolubility of marriage admits of no exception is indicated by Pope Zacharias in his letter of 5 January, 747, to Pepin and the Frankish bishops, for in chapter vii he ordains "by Apostolic authority", in answer to the questions that had been proposed to him: "If any layman shall put away his own wife and marry another, or if he shall marry a woman who has been put away by another man, let him be deprived of communion" [Monum. Germ. Hist.: Epist., III:Epist. Merovingici et Karolini ævi, I (Berlin, 1892), 482]

(c) Laxer Admissions and their Correction -- Whilst the popes constantly rejected absolute divorce in all cases, we find some of the Frankish synods of the eighth century which allowed it in certain acute cases. In this regard the Council of Verberie (752) and Compiègne (757) erred especially. Canon ix of the first council is undoubtedly erroneous (Labbe, VIII, 407). In this canon it is laid down that if a man must go abroad, and his wife, out of attachment to home and relatives, will not go with him, she must remain unmarried so long as the husband is alive whom she refused to follow; on the other hand, in contrast to the blameworthy woman, a second marriage is allowed to the husband: "If he has no hope of returning to his own country, if he cannot abstain, he can receive another wife with a penance." So deeply was the pre-Christian custom of the people engraven in their hearts that is was believed allowance should be made for it to some degree. Canon v seems also to grant the unauthorized permission for a second marriage. It treats of the case in which the wife, with the help of other men, seeks to murder her husband, and he escapes from the plot by killing her accomplices in self-defence. Such a husband is allowed to take another wife: "That husband can put away that wife, and, if he will, let him take another. But let that woman who made the plot undergo a penance and remain without hope of marriage." Some explain this canon to mean that the husband might marry again after the death of his first wife, but that the criminal wife was forbidden forever to marry. This last is in agreement with the penitential discipline of the age, because the crime in question was punished by life-long canonical penance, and hence by permanent exclusion from married life.

In its thirteenth canon (according to Labbe, VIII, 452; others call it the sixteenth), the Council of Compiègne gives a somewhat ambiguous decision and may seem to allow absolute divorce. It says that a man who has dismissed his wife in order that she might choose the religious life, or take the veil, can marry a second wife when the first has carried out the resolution. Nevertheless, the intended choice of the state of Christian perfection seems to imply that this canon must be limited to a marriage that has not been consummated. Hence it gives the correct Catholic doctrine, of which we shall speak below. This must also be the meaning of canon xvi (Labbe, VIII, 453; others, canon xix), which allows the dissolution of a marriage between a leper and a healthy woman, so that the woman is authorized to enter upon a new marriage, unless we supose that here there is a question of the diriment impediment of impotence. If these canons were really intended in any other sense, then they are contrary to the general doctrine of the Church. Other canons, in which separation and second marriage are allowed, refer undoubtedly to the diriment impediments of affinity and spiritual relationship, or to a marriage contracted in error by persons one of whom is free and the other not free. Hence they have no reference to actual divorce, and cannot be interpreted as a lax concession to popular morals or to passion. It is true that several of the Penitential Books composed about this time in the Frankish regions contain the cases mentioned by these two synods and add others in which the real dissolution of the marriage bond and a new marriage with another wife might be allowed. The following cases are mentioned in several of these Penitential Books: adultery, slavery as punishment for crime, imprisonment in war, wilful desertion without hope of reunion, etc. (Schmitz, "Bussbücher", II, 129 sqq.). These Penitential Books had indeed no official character, but they influenced for a time the ecclesiastical practice in these countries. However, their influence did not last long. In the first decades of the ninth century, the church began to proceed energetically against them (cf. the Synod of Châlons, in the year 813, canon xxxviii; Labbe, IX, 367). They were not completely suppressed at once, especially as a general decay of Christian morality took place in the tenth and early part of the eleventh century. Towards the end of the eleventh century, however, every concession to the laxer practice as regards divorce had been corrected. The complete indissolubility of Christian marriage had become so firmly fixed in the juridical conscience that the authentic collections of church laws, the Decretals of the twelfth century, do not even see the necessity of expressly declaring it, but simply suppose it, in other juridical decisions, as a matter of course and beyond discussion. This is shown in the entire series of cases in IV Decretal., xix. In all cases, whether the cause be criminal plotting, adultery, loss of faith, or anything else, the bond of marriage is regarded as absolutely indissoluble and entrance upon a second marriage as impossible.

(d) Dogmatic Decision on the Indissolubility of Marriage -- The Council of Trent was the first to make a dogmatic decision on this question. This took place in Session XXIV, canon v: "If anyone shall say that the bond of matrimony can be dissolved for the cause of hersy, or of injury due to cohabitation, or of wilful desertion; let him be anathema", and in canon vii: "If anyone shall say that the Church has erred in having taught, and in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved, and that neither party -- not even the innocent, who has given no cause by adultery -- can contract another marriage while the other lives, and that he, or she, commits adultery who puts away an adulterous wife, or husband, and marries another; let him be anathema." The decree defines directly the infallibility of the church doctrine in regard to indissolubility of marriage, even in the case of adultery, but indirectly the decree defines the indissolubility of marriage. Doubts have been expressed here and there about the dogmatic character of this definition (cf. Sasse, "De Sacramentis", II, 426). But Leo XIII, in his Encyclical "Arcanum", 10 February, 1880; calls the doctrine on divorce condemned by the Council of Trent "the baneful heresy" (hoeresim deterrimam). The acceptance of this indissolubility of marriage as an article of faith defined by the Council of Trent is demanded in the creed by which Orientals must make their profession of faith when reunited to the Roman Church. The formula prescribed by Urban VIII contains the following section: "Also, that the bond of the Sacrament of Matrimony is indissoluble; and that, although a separation tori et cohabitationis can be made between the parties, for adultery, heresy, or other causes, yet it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage." Exactly the same declaration in regard to marriage was made in the short profession of faith aproved by the Holy Office in the year 1890 (Collectanea S. Congr. de Prop. Fide, Rome, 1893, pp. 639, 640). The milder indirect form in which the Council of Trent pronounced its anathema was chosen expressly out of regard for the Greeks of that period, who would have been very much offended, according to the testimony of the Venetian ambassadors, if the anathema had been directed against them, whereas they would find it easier to accept the decree that the Roman Church was not guilty of error in her stricter interpretation of the law (Pallavicini, "Hist. Conc. Trid.", XXII, iv).

(e) Development of the Doctrine on Divorce outside of the Catholic Church -- In the Greek Church, and the other Oriental Churches in general, the practice, and finally even the doctrine, of the indissolubility of the marriage bond became more and more lax. Zhishman (Das Eberecht der orientalischen Kirchen, 729 sqq.) testifies that the Greek and Oriental Churches separated from Rome permit in their official ecclesiastical documents the dissolution of marriage, not merely on account of adultery, but also "of those occasions and actions the effect of which on married life might be regarded as similar to natural death or to adultery, or which justify the dissolution of the marriage bond in consequence of a well-founded supposition of death or adultery". Such reasons are, first, high treason; second, criminal attacks on life; third, frivolous conduct giving rise to suspicion of adultery; fourth, intentional abortion; fifth, acting as sponsor for one's own child in baptism; sixth, prolonged dissapearance; seventh, incurable lunacy rendering cohabitation impossible; eight, entrance of one party into a religious order with the permission of the other party.

Among the sects that arose at the time of Reformation in the sixteenth century, there can hardly be question of any development of church law about divorce. Jurisdiction in matrimonial affairs was relegated, on principle, to the civil law, and only the blessing of marriage was assigned to the Church. It is true that the interpretation of the so-called ecclesiastical officials, their approbaton or disapprobation of the civil marriage laws, might find expression in certain cases should they refuse to bless an intended marriage of people who had been divorced when the reason for the divorce seemed to them to be too much opposed to Scripture. It is not surprising that in this respect the tendency should have been downwards, when we remember that, in the various sects of Xrotestanism the growth of liberalism has advanced even to the denial of Christ [Dr. F. Albert, Verbrechen und Strafen als Ehescheidungsgrund nach evangel, Kirchenrecht (in Stutz, Kirchenr. Abhandlungen, Stuttgart, 1903), I, IV].

4. Declaration of Nullity

The declaration of nullity must be carefuly distinguished from divorce proper. It can be called divorce only in a very improper sense, because it presupposes that there is and has been no marriage. However, as there is question of an alleged marriage and of a union which is considered by the public as a true marriage, we can understand why a previous ecclesiastical judgement should be required, declaring the presence of a diriment impediment and the consequent invalidity of a supposed marriage, before the persons in question might be free to separate or to enter upon a new marriage. It is only when the invalidity of a marriage becomes publicly known and further cohabitation gives scandal, or when other important reasons render a prompt separation of domicile necessary or adivisable, that such a separation should take place at once, to be made definitive by a later judicial sentence. When the invalidity of a marriage is publicly known, official procedure is necessary, and ecclesiastical process of nullification must be introduced. In the case of impediments which refer exclusively to the rights of the husband and wife, and which can be removed by their consent, only the one of the supposed spouses whose right is in question is permitted to impugn the marriage by complaint before the ecclesiastical court, provided it is desired to maintain this right. Such cases are the impediments of fear or violence, of essential error of impotence on the part of the other not fully established, and failure to comply with some fixed condition. In cases of the other possible impediments, every Catholic, even a stranger, may enter a complaint of nullity if he can bring proofs of such nullity. The only plaintiffs excluded are those who, on account of private advantage, were unwilling to declare the invalidity of the marriage before its dissolution by death, or who knew the impediment when the banns or marriage were proclaimed and culpably kept silence. Of course it is allowed to the married parties to disprove the reasons alleged by strangers against their marriage (Wernz, "Jus decretalium", IV, n. 743).

That separation and remarriage of the separated parties may not take place merely on account of private convictions of the invalidity of a supposed marriage, but only in consequence of an ecclesiastical judgement was taught by Alexander III and Innocent III in IV Decretal., xix, 3 and II Decretal., xiii, 13. In earlier centuries the summary decision of the bishops sufficed; at present the Constitution of Benedict XIV, "Dei miseratione", 3 November, 1741, must be followed. This prescribes that in matrimonial cases a "defender of the matrimonial tie" (defensor matrimonii) must be appointed. If the decision is for the validity of the marriage, there need be no appeal in the second instance. The parties can be satisfied with the first decision and continued in married life. If the decision is for the invalidity of the marriage, an appeal must be entered, and sometimes even a second appeal to the court of third instance, so that it is only after two concordant decisions on the invalidity of marriage in question that itcan be regarded as invalid, and the parties are allowed to proceed to another marriage. (Cf. III Conc. plen. Baltim., App. 262 sqq.; Conc. Americ. latin., II, n. 16; Laurentius, "Instit. iuris eccl.", 2nd ed., n. 696 sqq.; Wernz, "Jusdecretal.", IV, n. 744 sqq.) Sometimes, however, in missionary countries, Apostolic prefects are permitted to give summary decision of cases in which two concordant opinions of approved theologians or canonists pronounce the invalidity of the marriage to be beyond doubt. Moreover, in cases of evident nullity, because of a manifest impediment of blood-relationship or affinity, of previous marriage, of the absence of form, of lack of baptism on the part of one party, a second sentence of nullity is no longer demanded (Decr. of the Holy Office, 5 June, 1889, and 16 June, 1894. Cf. Acta S. Sedis, XXVII, 141; also Decr. of the Holy Office, 27 March, 1901, Acta S. Sedis, XXXIII, 765). The court of first instance in the process of nullication is the episcopal court of the diocese, of second instance the metropolitan court, of third instance the Roman See. Sometimes, however, Rome designates for the third instance a metropolitan see of the country in question (Laurentius, above, 697, not. 6). No one, however, is prohibited from immediate application in the first instance to the Holy See. Custom reserves to the Holy See matrimonial cases of reigning princes.

In the Decretals the declaration of nullity is treated under the title "De Divortiis". But it is important that these matters should be carefully distinguished from one another. The lack of exact distinction between the expressions "declaration of invalidity" and "divorce", and the different treatment of invalid marriages at different periods, may lead to incorrect judgements of ecclesiastical decisions. Decisions of particular Churches are too easily regarded as dissolutions of valid marriages, where in fact they were only declarations of nullity; and even papal decisions, like those of Gregory II communicated to St. Boniface and of Alexander III to Bishop of Amiens, are looked on by some writers as permissions granted by the popes to Frankish Churches to dissolve a valid marriage in certain cases. The decision of Gregory II, in the year 726, was embodied in the collection of Gratian (C. xxxii, Q. vii, c. xviii), and is printed in "Mon. Germ. Hist.", III: Epist. (Epist. Merovingici et Karolini ævi I), p. 276; the decision of Alexander III is given in the Decretals as pars decisa, i.e., a part of the papal letter (IV Decretal., xv, 2) left out in the Decretal itself. In both cases there was question of a declaration of the invalidity of a marriage which was invalid from the very beginning because of antecedent impotence. A certain concession to Frankish Churches was, however, made in these cases. Accoding to Roman custom such supposed husband and wife were not separated, but were bound to live together as brother and sister. In Frankish Churches, however, a separation was pronouced and permission to contract another marriage was allowed to the one not afflicted with absolute impotence. This custom Alexander III granted to the Frankish Churches for the future. If therefore, the union in question is spoken of a legitima conjunctio, or even as a legitimum matrimonium, this is done only on account of the external form of the marriage contract. That in such cases a diriment impediment according to the natural law was present, and an actual marriage was impossible, was well understod by the pope. He says this expressly in the part of his letter that has been embodied in the Decretals (IV Decretal., xv, 2. Cf. Sägmüller, "Die Ehe Heinrichs II" in the Tübingen "Theol. Quartalschr.", LXXXVII, 1905, 84 sqq.). That in similar cases decision has been given sometimes for separation and sometimes against it, need excite no surprise, for even at the present day the ecclesiastical idea of impotence on the part of the woman is not fully settled (cf. controversy in "The American Eccl. Review", XXVIII, 51 sqq.).

B. Non-Christian Marriage Can be Dissolved by Absolute Divorce under Certain Circumstances in Favour of the Faith.

1. The Pauline Privilege

The Magna Charta in favour of Christian faith is contained in the words of the Apostle, I Cor., vii, 12-15: "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And if any woman hath a husband that believeth not, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace." (On the interpretation of these words see Cornely on I. Cor., 175 sqq.). The exegetical controversy, as to whether these words are dependent on the proceeding sentence, "For to the rest I speak, not the Lord", or whether that sentence refers to the one preceding it, is of no importance in this question. In the first supposition, we should seem to have here an ordinance which is not immediately Divine, but was established by the Apostle through the power of Christ. In the second supposition, it may be an immediately Divine ordinance.

These words of the Apostle tell us that in all cases when one of the married parties have received the Christian Faith, and the other remains an infidel and is not willing to live in peace with the Christian, the believer is not bound but is free. The Apostle does not indeed say expressly and formally that the marriage bond has been dissolved, but if it were not at least in the power of the Christian to dissolve the previous bond and to enter upon another marriage, the words would not have their full truth. Hence the Church has understood the words in this sense, and at the same time has fixed more exactly how and under what conditions this so-called Pauline privilege may be exercised. Innocent III declares authoritatively (IV Decretal., xix, 7, in cap."Quanto") that the convert is justified in entering upon another marriage if he will, provided the non-Christian is unwilling either to live with the other or such cohabitation would cause the blasphemy of the Divine name or be an incentive to moral sin: "Si enim alter infidelium conjugum ad fidem convertatur, altero vel nullo modo, vel non sine blasphemiâ divini nominis, vel ut eum pertrahat ad mortale peccatum ei cohabitare volente: qui relinquitur, ad secunda, si voluerit, vota transibit: et in hoc casu intelligimus quod ait Apostolus: Si infidelis discedit, etc., et canonem etiam in quo dicitur: Contumelia creatoris solvit jus matrimonii circa eum qui relinquitur." According to the Church's interpretation and practice, the dissolution of marriage that was contractd before the conversion is not effected by the separation of the married parties, but only when a new marriage is contracted by the Christian party because of this privilege. The Holy Office says this expressly in the decree of 5 August, 1759, ad 2: "Then only may the yoke of the matrimonial bond with an infidel be understood to be loosed when the convert spouse. . . proceeds to another marriage with a believer" (Collectan. S. Congr. de Prop. F., n. 1312). The manner of obtaining this right to enter upon a new marriage is fixed by the Church under penalty of invalidity, and consists in a demand (interpellatio) made of the non-Christian party whether he or she be willing to live with the other in peace or not. If this interpellation is not possible, and Apostolic dispensation ab interpellatione must be obtained (Collectanea, n. 1323). If the spouse that remains in infidelity agrees to live in peace, but later on acts contrary to this agreement by abusing the Christian religion, or tempting the Christian to infidelity, or preventing the children from being educated in the Christian Faith, or becomes a temptation for the Christian to commit any mortal sin, the latter regains the right to proceed to a new marriage after any lapse of time. This consequence which follows from the very nature of the privilege was expressly declared by the Holy Office in the decree of 27 September, 1848, and was confirmed by Pius IX (Colectan., n. 1227; Ballerini-Palmieri, "Opus theol. Mor.", 3d ed., VI, n. 468). If, however, the non-Christian party refuses to continue further in married life, not from hatred of the Faith or for other sinful reasons, but because the Christian, by sinful conduct (for instance by adultery), has given just reason for separation, the Christian would not be justified in entering upon a new marriage. The privilege, however, would still be his if the non-Christian party wished to maintain as reason for separation adultery committed before the time of the conversion. (Collectan., n. 1312, 1318, 1322) The interpellation of the non-Christian party, which must take place before the remarriage of the Christian, must as a general rule be about living together in peace or not, but as peaceful cohabitation can only be imagined in a case where there are no serious dangers, and such dangers may arise in certain circumstances from continued living with the non-Christian party, it is readily understood that the Holy See is justified in making the interpellation mean, whether the non-Christian party be willing to accept the Christian Faith; and in case the non-Christian refuses after careful deliberation, then, as a result of this refusal, permission may be granted to the Christian party to enter upon a new marriage and thereby to dissolve the previous one. This procedure, allowed by Sixtus V, received new confirmation and direction under Leo XIII by the decree of the Holy Office, 29 November, 1882 (Collectan., n. 1358, ad 3).

The Pauline privilege is said to be in favour of the Christian Faith, but the meaning of the privilege and the right in such cases to absolute divorce is not exactly defined thereby. Doubt might arise in regard to catechumens, and also in regard to such as join a Christian denomination but do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church. The solution to these doubts is contained in the following proposition: the Pauline privilege is attached to baptism. That the privilege is granted to nobody before the actual reception of baptism is beyond question from the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, 16 January, 1803 (Collectan., n. 1319), and also from the decree of the Holy Office, 13 March, 1901 (Acta S. Sedis, XXXIII, 550). Even the interpellation of the non-Christian party ought to be postponed until after the baptism of the other. It requires a papal dispensation to proceed to such an interpellation validly before baptism (Cf. Instructio S. Officii, under the authorization of Pius IX, 3 June, 1874, in Collectan., n. 1357). It is also certain that the dissolubility here in question is not limited to the marriages of pagans, but to all marriages of unbaptized persons, even though they should belong to some non-Catholic Christian denomination (Acta S. Sedis, loc. cit). Whether, however, the privilege is so joined to baptism that it belongs to Christian adherents of a non-Catholic denomination when they profess the Christian Faith by the reception of baptism is a question disputed by theologians. Some theologians of repute assert that the privilege is granted in this case, and that a practical decision to this effect has been made by a Roman Congregation, according to the testimony of Koenings, "Theol. mor.", II, 394 (New York, 1878). (Cf. Palmieri, "De matrim. christ.", th. xxvii, p. 224; Tarquini in "Archiv für decretal.", IV, n. 702, not. 59; Gasparri, "De matrim.", II, n. 1331; Ballerin-Palmieri, "Opus theol. mor.", 3d ed., VI, 457 sqq.) Even in the early ages the Venerable Bede and St. Augustine seem to have understood the passage from St. Paul (I Cor.) in this sense.

2. The Papal Authority to Dissolve a Non-Christian Marriage

From the ecclesiastical decisions that have been already quoted, it is clear that the Church has at least the authority of explaining the Pauline privilege, of limiting and extending it. This would give rise to no difficulties if the Pauline privilege, as expressed in I Cor., vii, 15, were an immediate Apostolic ordinance and only mediately Divine, inasmuch as Christ would have granted the power in general in a case of necessity to dissolve in favour of the Faith a marriage contracted in infidelity. For the entire Apostolic power passed to the supreme head of the Church, and as the Apostle could determine fixed rules and conditions for the dissolution of the marriages in question, the pope would have precisely the same authority. Yet on this point there is a diversity of opinion among theologians, and the Church has not settled the dispute. For, even if the privilege as promulgated by St. Paul was of immediate Divine right, the Church's power to make at least modifications in case of necessity can readily be explained because such a power belongs to her without a doubt in the other matters that are of Divine right. The first opinion seems to have been held in the fourteenth century by eminent scholers like P. de Palude and de Tudeschis, and in the fifteenth century by St. Antoninus; in recent times it is defended by Gasparri, Rossi, Fahrner, and others. The second opinion is held by Th. Sanchez, Benedict XIV, St. Alphonsus, Perrone, Billot, Wernz, and others. The instruction of the Holy Office, 11 July, 1866 (Collectan., n. 1353), calls the privilege a Divine privilege "promulgated by the Apostle". However, in spite of the disagreement in regard to the Pauline privilege, the defenders of both opinions agree that there is another method for the dissolution of the marriage of infidels when one of the parties receives baptism, namely, by papal authority. This power is indeed not admitted by all theologians. Even Lambertini (who later became Pope Benedict XIV) doubted it when he was secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, in the causa Florentina, in the year 1726. But earlier papal decisions, as well as the actual decision in this very case, leave no room for doubt that the popes attribute to themselves this power and act accordingly.

If the Pauline privilege alone be applied, it will follow that when a pagan is converted who has been living in polygamy, he can be permitted to choose anyone of his wives who may be willing to receive baptism, provided his first wife is unwilling to live with him in peace or, under the circumstances, to be converted to the Faith. Hence it is that the answers of Roman Congregations based on the Pauline privilege always include the phrase nisi prima voluerit converti. Now several of the popes have at times granted permission to whole nations to choose any one of the several wives, without adding the clause "unlesss the first be willingt o be converted". This was done for India by St. Pius V, 2 August, 1571, in the Constitution "Romani Pontificis". Urban VIII, 20 October, 1626, and 17 September, 1627, did the same for the South American nations, and expressly declares: "Considering that such pagan marriages are not so firm that in case of necessity they cannot be dissolved"; similarly, Gregory XIII, 25 January, 1585 (cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, "Opus theol. mor." 3d ed., VI, nn. 444, 451, 452). The theological proof of this papal authority is easy for those who, as has been said, regard the Pauline privilege as an immediate Apostolic ordinance. For it is then expressly testified by Holy Scripture that the Apostolic, hence also the papal authority, can allow in favour of the Faith the dissolution of marriage contracted in infidelity. The method of procedure and the precise application in various cases would naturally be committed to the bearer of the Apostolic authority. Those who consider that the Pauline privilege is an immediate Divine determination of the case in which marriage may be dissolved, prove the papal authority in another way. Since it follows from I Cor., vii, 15, that marriage contracted in infidelity is not absolutely indissoluble according to Divine right, it follows from the general power of loosing which was granted to the successor of St. Peter, Matt., xvi, 19 -- "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" -- that this power extends also to our present matter. Moreover, the successor of St. Peter are themselves the best interpreters of their power. Whenever the exercise of an authority that has not hitherto been clearly recognized occurs, not merely on one occasion but frequently, there can be no more doubt that such authority is rightfully exercised. Now this is precisely what took place in the grants of Pius V, Gregory XIII, and Urban VIII for the vast territories of India, the West Indies, etc.

3. The Dissolution of Marriage Contracted in Infidelity by Profession in a Religious Order

When the doctrine explained above, which now is practically admitted beyond doubt, has been established, the question, whether a marriage contracted in infidelity can be dissolved by the religious profession of the converted party, is not very important. It is so to be understood that the baptized party may choose the religious life, even against the will of the one still unbaptized, and, in consequence of this, the other may enter upon a new marriage. According to the doctrine we have just explained, it is clear that the pope, at least in single cases, can permit this. Whether, according to general law, and by immediate Divine ordinance, without the intervention of the pope, this privilege belongs to the baptized party, is somewhat connected with another question, viz., for what reason Christian (i.e., sacramental) matrimony, not yet consummated, can be dissolved by religious profession. This leads us to the third proposition about this subject of divorce.

C. Christian Marriage before Consummation Can Be Dissolved by Solemn Profession in a Religious Order, or by an Act of Papal Authority.

1. Dissolution by Solemn Profession

The fact that religious profession causes the dissolution of the marriage bond, provided the marriage has not been consummated, is distinctly taught in the Extrav. Joan. XXII(tit. VI, cap. unic.), and was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent (Sess, XXIV, can. vi). The reason why this dissolution takes place is a theological question. The definition reads: "If anyone shall say that a marriage contracted, but not consummated, is not dissolved by the solemn religious profession of either one of the parties to the marriage, let him be anathema." The expression, by the solemn profession, is important. Neither the mere entrance into a religious order, nor life in the novitiate, nor the so-called profession of simple vows, even though they be for life, as is customary in modern congregations, is capable of dissolving a previous marriage. The simple vows which are pronounced in the Society of Jesus, either as vows of scholastic or as vows of formed coadjutors, do not dissolve a marriage which has been contracted and not yet consummated, though they cause a diriment impediment in regard to any future marriage. The question as to how and for what reason such marriage is dissolved by solemn religious profession is answered by some by pointing to an immediate Divine right, as if God himself had so ordained immediately. Others, however, ascribe it to the power which the Church has received from God, and to its ordinance. The first opinion is defended by Dominic Soto, Th. Sanchez, Benedict XIV, Perrone, Rosset, Palmieri, and others; the second by Henry de Segusia (commonly called Hostiensis), Suarez, Laymann, Kugler, the Würzburg theologians, Wernz, Gasparri, Laurentius, fahrner, and others. The tradition of the Christian Church for centuries bears witness that Christian marriage before consummation has not the same indissolubility as a consummated marriage. Scholars, however, are not unanimous about the limits of its dissolubility. Many facts from the lives of the saints, of St. Thecla, St. Cecilia, St. Alexius, and others, such for example as are narrated by Gregory the Great (III Dialog., xiv, in P.L., XXXIII) and by the Venerable Bede (Hist. Angl., xix, in P.L., XCV, 201 sqq.), are proof of the universal Christian conviction that, even after marriage had been contracted, it was free for either of the married parties to separate from the other in order to choose a life of evangelical perfection. Now this would be a violation of the right of the other spouse if in such circumstances the marriage bond were not dissolved, or at least could not easily be dissolved under certain conditions, and thereby the right granted to the other to enter upon another marriage. The precise conditions under which this dissolution of the marriage bond actually took place, and stil takes place, can only be decided with certainty by the authentic declaration of the Church. Such a declaration was made by Alexander III, according to III Decretal., xxxii, 2: "After a lawfully accorded consent affecting the present, it is allowed to one of the parties, even against the will of the other, to choose a monastery (just as certain saints have been called from marriage), provided that carnal intercourse shall not have taken place between them; and it is allowed to the one who is left to proceed to a second marriage." A similar declaration was made by Innocent III, op. cit., cap. xiv. From this latter declaration we learn that religious profession alone has this effect, and that therefore those who wished to practise a life of higher perfection in any other manner could be obliged by the other spouse either actually to choose the religious state or else to consummate the marriage. Under earlier ecclesiastical conditions, no long delay was imposed upon the other party before entering upon another marriage, because religious profession might be made without a long novitiate. The introduction of a novitiate of at least a year by the Council of Trent, and the time of three years prescribed by Pius IX and Leo XIII for simple vows before the solemn professsion, and the general restriction of solemn profession by the establishment of simple profession, which does not dissolve the marriage bond, have rendered difficult the dissolution of unconsummated marriage by religious profession. So that now it seems practically necessary that if one of the married parties should choose the state of evangelical perfection before the consummation of the marriage, the marriage bond should be dissolved by papal authority.

2. Dissolution by the Pope of Marriage not yet Consummated.

The pope's authority as supreme head of the Church to dissolve Christian marriage not yet consummated is proved on the one hand from the wos of Christ to Peter, Matt., xvi, 19 (see above, under B, 2), and on the other, from the dissolubility of such a marriage by religious profession, inasmuch as this profession must be solemn, for according to the declaration of Boniface VIII (III Sexti Decretal., xv, c. unic.), solemn vows as such depend entirely upon the ordinance of the Church -- "voti solemnitas ex solâ constitutione Ecclesiæ est inventa". Hence it follows without a doubt that the dissolution of a marriage by solemn profession could never take place without the exercise of the Church's authority. Now if the Church can cause such a dissoltuion according to a general law, a fortiori she can do this in single cases -- not indeed arbitrarily, but for grave reasons -- because this power has been granted by God to dispense in matters of Divine right, and a delegated authority may not be exercised without a sufficient reason (cf. Wernz, "Just decretal.", IV, n. 698, not. 39). The actual exercise of this power on the part of the popes, which has become constant and general, is a further proof of its propriety and its actual existence. Clear instances occur during the pontificates of Martin V (1417-31) and Eugene IV (1431-47). St Antoninus tells us that he had seen several Bulls of the popes which granted such a dispensation of a dissolution of a marriage that had not been consummated, so that thereafter they might proceed to a new marriage. (Summa theol., III, tit. i, c. xxi). We can find traces of such a practice even in much earlier times. A decretal of Alexander III, namely, IV Decretal., xiii, 2, seems, according to a probable interpretation, to refer to a possible concession of such a dissolution. Perhaps the decision of Gregory II to St. Boniface, in 726 (see above under A. 4) might possibly be explained in the same sense, though it is very uncertain, for it seems to refer neither to the dissolution of a consummated marriage, as some supposed, nor to the dissolution of a real marriage that had not been consumated, but rather to a declaration of invalidity. For several centuries the exercise of this power of dissolving such marriages has belonged to the ordinary functions of the Holy See, and is exlusively papal, for the work of the Roman Congregations in such cases is only preparatory. However, exceptional instances occur when it has been delegated to bishops (Wernz, op. cit., n. 698, not. 41). The judicial procedure in such cases was exactly prescribed by Benedict XIV in his Bull of judicial procedure ("Dei miseratione", 3 November, 1741 (section 15), obligatory on the whole Latin Church. Any uncertainty about this ecclesiastical power (cf. Fahrner;Geshichte des Unauflöslichkeitsprincips, p. 170 sqq.) was removed bythis Bull; for if this power did not belong to the Church, then the Bull in question would have approved and originated an institution against all good morals. It is, however, inconceivable that the pope could issue an attack on morality and could formally sanction bigamy in certain cases. Several of the older canonists, especially those of Bologna, brought forward some special reasons which are supposed to justify the dissolution of a marriage before consummation. If thereby they wish to assert the right of dissolution by private authority, then they erred. If they intended to speak of a dissolution that could be granted by the Church, that is, by its supreme head, and the permission for a new marriage, then they had merely collected the cases in which such a dissolution might take place in virtue of the papal authority just spoken of, but they had not given a new title to such dissolution. Some held the erroneous opinion of private dissolubility, because they regarded such a union as no real marriage, but simply as betrothal, and therefore they treated it according to the juridical principles in regard to betrothal. This theory of marriage, however, was not often defended, and has long dissapeared from theological schools; neither does it deserve any consideration at present, because it is in conflict with established Catholic dogmas.

D. Limited Divorce, or Separation from Bed and Board (Divortium Imperfectum) is allowed for various causes, especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresy on the part of husband or wife.

A separation of married parties leaving the marriage bond intact is mentioned by St. Paul, I Cor., vii, 11: "If she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband." From the very nature of the case it follows that occasions may arise in which further cohabitation is unadvisable or even unseemly and morally impossible. If such circumstances do not bring about a dissolution of the marriage bond, at least a cessation of married life must be permitted. Hence it is that the Council of Trent, immediately after its definition of the indissolubility of the marrriage bond, even in case of adultery, added another canon (Sess. XXIV, can. viii): "If anyone shall say that the Church errs when she, for many causes, decrees a separation of husband and wife in respect to bed and dwelling-place for a definite or an indefinite period; let him be anathema." The cessation of married life in common may have different degrees. There can be the mere cessation of married life (separatio quoad torum), or a complete separation as regards dwelling-place (separatio quoad cohabitationem). Each of these may be permanent or temporary. Temporary abstinence from married life, or separatio a toro, may take place by mutual private consent from higher religious motives, not, however, if such continence be the occasion of moral danger to either of the parties. Should such danger threaten either, it would become their duty to resume married life. The Apostle speaks of this in I Cor., vii, 5: "Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourself to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency."

1. The Choice of Evangelical Perfection

For a permanent separation on account of entrance into the state of Christian perfection, i.e., entrance into religious life on the part of the wife or of the husband, or by the reception of Holy orders on the part of the husband, there is required not only mutual consent, but also some arrangement on the part of ecclesiastical authority, according to the laws about such cases. This holds in regard to the reception of the major orders immediately after the contraction of marriage, even before it consummated. In regard to the choice of religious life, it holds only after consummated marriage. For, as we have said above, by the religious life marriage which has not yet consummated can be dissolved, and on that account newly-married parties have the right to a delay of two months to consider the choice of the state of perfection, and during which the consummation of the marriage may be refused (St. Alphonsus, "Theol. mor.", VI, n. 958). In case the marriage is not dissolved, the reception of Holy orders or religious profession cannot take place before provision has been made for a continent life on the part of the other party. In accordance with the judgment of the diocesan bishop, he or she must either enter a religious order, or, if age and other circumstances remove all suspicion and all danger of incontinency, at least take a private vow of perpetual chastity. In no case can it ever be allowed that the husband who should receive Holy orders might dwell in the same house with the wife bound only by a private vow (cf. Laurentius, "Instit. jur. eccl." 2nd ed., n. 694).

2. Adultery of One of the Parties

Cause for the cessation of complete community of life, which in itself is perpetual, is given to the innocent party by adultery of the spouse. In order, however, that this right may exist, the adultery must be, first, proven; second, not attributable to the other spouse either entirely or as accomplice; third, not already condoned; fourth, not, as it were, compensated by the adultery of the other party (cf. IV Decretal., xiii, 6, and xix, 4, 5; Wernz, "Jus decret.", IV, n. 707 sqq.; St. Alphonsus, VI, n. 960). If the innocent party is certain of the sin of the other, he or she has a right immediately to refuse the continuation of married life. If the crime is manifest, then the innocent party is justified in leaving at once the guilty one, or in dismissing him or her from the house. If, however, the crime is not known, or not proved with certainty, then complete separation can follow only after a judicial investigation and a judicial decision, which must be made by ecclesiastical authority (IV Decretal., xix, 4, 5;I, 9; Wernz, "Jus decretal.", IV, n. 711). All sexual intercourse outside of married life is regarded equivalent to adultery in justifying complete separation, even the unnatural sins of sodomy and bestiality. As proof of the crime may be alleged what are called suspiciones vehementes. In the first centuries of the Church, there was often a commandment, and the duty was imposed on the innocent party, to separate from the party guilty of adultery. There never, however, was any such general legislation. The duty, however, of separation was founded partly on the canonical penance imposed for adultery that was publicly known (and this penance was incompatible with marital life), and partly on the duty of avoiding scandal, as continued living with a husband or wife addicted to adultery might seem to be a scandalous approval of this criminal life. For this latter reason, even nowadays, circumstances may arise making the dismissal of the guilty party a duty (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, n. 963 sqq.). Commonly, however, at least for a single violation, there is no duty of separation; still less is there any duty of permanent separation; in fact, charity may in certain cases demand that after a temporary separation the contrite party might be invited or admitted to a renewal of the married life. There is, however, never any obligation of justice to receive again the guilty party. The most that some theologians recognize is any obligation of justice when the party originally innocent has meanwhile become guilty of the same crime. The innocent party always retains the right in justice to recall or to demand the return of the guilty party. If the innocent husband or wife wishes to give up this right forever, then he or she can enter a religious order, or he may receive Holy orders, without the necessity of consent on the part of the guilty wife or husband who has been dismissed, or without any further obligation being imposed upon this party (III Decretal., xxxii, 15, 16). The guilty party can, however, proceed to the religious life or to the reception of Holy orders only with the consent of the innocent. This consent must either be granted expressly or be deduced with certainty from the constant refusal to be reconciled. It is the business of ecclesiastical authority to decice in any case, whether such certainty exists or not. A further obligation, such as the vow of perpetual chastity, is not imposed upon the innocent party, but the freedom to remarry is allowed after the death of the other spouse (cf. III Decretal., xxxii, 19; Wernz, op. cit., n. 710), not. 126; St. Alphonsus, VI, n. 969).

3. Heresy or Defection from the Faith

Next to adultery, a reason for separation almost equivalent to it is defection from the Faith, whether by rejection of Christianity or, by heresy (IV Decretal., xix, 6, 7). However, there are some important differences to be noted:

(a) In the case of adultery, a single action, if proven, is enough for permanent separation, but in the case of infidelity or heresy, a certain persistence in the sin is required (cf. St. Thomas, IV Sent., dist. xxxv, Q. i, a. 1), such for example as adhesion to a non-Catholic denomination.

(b) An ecclesiastical sentence is necessary in this case for the right of permanent separation. If this has not been obtained, the innocent party is bound to receive the guilty party after conversion and reconciliation with the Church. This is expressly decided by IV Decretal., xix, 6. When, however, the right to permanent separation has been granted, the innocent party can proceed at once to the religious life or receive Holy orders, and thereby render it impossible to return to married life. It need hardly be mentioned that infidelity or heresy, as such, gives no just cause of separation of any kind, and if a dispensation from the impediment of disparity of worship between a baptized and non-baptized person has been granted, or if a valid marriage, even without ecclesiastical dispensation, has taken place between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic. In such cases, passage from one denomination to another does not give a reason for separation.

4. Danger to Body or Soul

Besides these special cases of separation founded on ecclesiastical law, many other cases may arise, which, of their nature, justify temporary separation. They are summed up under the general notion of "danger to body or soul" (periculum corporis aut animæ). There must, of course, be question of approximate danger of great harm, because this very important right of the other party may not be set aside, or even partially limited, for trivial reasons. The reasons for a temporary separation are as various as the evils which may be inflicted. To judge the gravity correctly, reasonable consideration is demanded of all the circumstances. Danger to the soul, which is given as a reason for separation, almost always supposes a crime on the part of the other party. It consists in temptation to some mortal sin, either to the denial of the Catholic Faith, or the neglect of the proper education of the children, or to some other grievous sin and violation of the mortal law. Dangerous solicitation, or pressure, or intimidation, or threats inflicted either by, or with the consent of, one party, or silent approbation to induce the other to a grievous violation of duty would give justification -- and even the obligation, if the danger were great -- to proceed to separation, which sould last as long as the danger exists. Such a reason as this might later on justify a separation in the case of a mixed marriage. Danger to the body, which is a further reason for a separation, means any great danger to life or health, as well as other intolarable conditions. Such are, without doubt, plotting against one's life, ill-treatment which in the circumstances should be regarded as gross, well-grounded fear of dangerous contagion, insanity, serious and constant quarelling, etc. It is to be noted that in every case, there must be a very serious evil to justify separation for any length of time. Other inconveniences must be borne with Christian patience. Great crimes of one party, provided they are not against marital fidelity, or do not include any incentive to sin on the part of the other, do not, according to Catholic law, of themselves give any right to separation; neither do punishments that might be inflicted on the guilty party in consequence of such crimes, even when this punishments be joined with dishonour. The Catholic view of this matter is directly opposed to the non-catholic, which, as we have seen above under A. 3. (e), permits in such cases the dissolution of the marriage bond.

By private authority, i.e., without previous application to an ecclesiastical court, and its decision, a temporary separation may take place when delay would bring danger. The church law does not allow a separation in other cases (Wernz, "Jus Decret.", IV, n. 713; St. Alphonsus, "Theol. mor.", VI, n. 971), although, where there are evident and public reasons for separation, the non-observance of the Church's regulations can more easily be overlooked. Separation because of the mere decision of a civil judge is never allowed to Catholics. (Cf. III Conc. plen. Baltim., tit. IV, c. ii).

FAHRNER, Geschichte de Ehesheidung (Freiburg, 1903), I; SCHNEEMANN, Die Irrtümer über die Ehe in Die Encyclica Pius IX, vom 8 Dez., 1864 (Freiburg, 1866), III; AVOGRADO, Teorica dell' Instuzione del matrimonio (Turin, 1853-1860); PERRONE, De matrimonio christiano (rome, 1858); PALMIERI, De matrimonio christiano (Rome, 1880); BALLERINI-PALMIERI, Opus theol. mor. (Prato, 1990), VI; SASSE, De sacramentis (Freiburg, 1898); PESCH, Prælectiones dogmat. (Freiburg, 1900), VII; ST. ALPHONSUS, Theologia moral., VI; WERNZ, Jus decretalium, IV: Just matrimoniale (Romo, 1904), ESMEIN, Le mariage en droit canonique (Paris, 1891); LAURENTIUS, Institutiones juris eccles. (Friburg, 1908); GASPARRI, De matrimonio tract. canon. (Paris, 1904); ROSSET, De matrimonii tract. dogm. etc. (Paris, 1895-1896); FREISEN, Geschichte de kath. Eherechts bis zum Verfall der Glossenliteratur (Tübingen, 1888); GIGOI, Die Unauflöslichkeit der chirstl. Ehe und die Ehescheidung nach Schrift und Tradition (Paderborn, 1895); CORNELY, Commentar. in Ep. ad Rom. (Paris, 1896); KNABENBAUER, Commentar. in Matth. (Paris, 1903); PRAT, La théologie de S. Paul (Paris, 1908); SCHANZ, Kommentar über das Evang. d. hl. Matth. (Freiburg, 1879); SCHMITZ, Die Bussbücher und die Bussdisciplin der Kirche (Mainz, 1883; Düsselforf, 1893); Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide (Rome, 1893); ZHISHMAN, Das Eherecht der orientalischen Kirchen (Vienna, 1864); SLATER, Manual of Moral Theology (New York, 1908), II, 278 sqq.: DEVINE, The law of of Christian Marriage (New York, 1908), 85-114. For divorice among the Jews: AMRAM, The Jewish Law of Divorce (Philadelphia, 1896; London, 1897); Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. Divorce (New York and London, 1901-1906); SELDEN, Uxor Ebraica absolvens nuptias et divortia Ebræorum (Wittenberg, 1712).

AUG. LEHMKUHL

Divorce (in Civil Jurisprudence)

Divorce is defined in jurisprudence as "the dissolution or partial suspension by law of the marriage relation" (Bouvier's Law Dictionary). Strictly speaking, there is but one form of absolute divorce, known, under the name derived from the civil and canon law, as divorce a vinculo matrimonii; i.e., from the marriage tie. In the states where it is administered this form of divorce puts an end legally to the marriage relation. There is, however, a limited form of divorce which is, more accurately speaking, a suspension, either for a time or indefinitely, of the marriage relation, and is known as divorce a mensâ et toro, or from bed and board. In addition, in some states courts grant decrees declaring marriages absolutely void, ab initio, i.e., from the beginning. Such marriages never having been valid, the parties cannot be said to have been divorced; however, proceeding for nullity are frequently provided for under divorce statutes.

Pre-Christian Divorce Legislation among the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans

Before the adoption of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire, it would appear that divorce in some form existed among all ancient peoples from whom European civilization is derived. Among the Hebrews no precedent for divorce can be found prior to the Mosaic Law. It became frequent afterwards, though it would seem that the husband alone possesed the power, at least until the reign of Herod. Divorce was prevalent among the Greeks, especially in Athens, but the party suing had to appeal to the magistrate, state the grounds of complaint, and submit to his judgement; if the wife was the prosecutor, she was obliged to appear in person. The lax customs of Spartans made divorce rare. Among the Romans the law of Romulus permitted divorce to men, but refused it to women. Adultery, poisoning of children, and falsification or counterfeiting of keys, were sufficient grounds. While divorce was so far free that there was no one authorized by the civil power to oppose it, this freedom was restrained by the moral feeling of the people and their respect for the marriage bond. It was necessary to consult the family council and there was fear of the authority of the censors. There were three forms of marriage among the Romans; the confarreatio, which was celebrated with certain highly religious ceremonies peculiar to that form of wedding; the conventio in manum, effected by a simulated purchase (coemptio), a much more simple ceremony; and the usus or prescription, where, after living with her husband for one year without being absent for three days, the woman came, and in the other forms of marriage, in manum mariti, that is to say, under the control of her husband. No instance of divorce is known before A.U.C. 520 or 523. It is thought by many that this was the first instance of divorce under the Roman Republic, but it would seem probable that it was the first divorce for the special purpose of retaining the wife's dower (dos). This is the suggestion of Becker, who points out that the divorce of Antonius took place in A.U.C. 447, and states that other proof exists that in much earlier times divorce was properly established and strictly ordained by laws. He quotes also from Cicero (Phil., ii, 28) where he says jokingly of Antonius, who had dimissed his wife Cytheris under the same formalities as those of divorce, "that he commanded her to have her own property according to the Twelve Tables; he took away her keys and drove her out."

The causes of divorce on the part of the woman were capital offences, adultery, and drinking. After the Punic wars the number of divorces reached scandalous proportions. Sulla, Cæesar, Pompey, Cicero, Antony, Augustus, and Tiberius all put away their wives. Under Augustus an effort was made to curb the licence of divorce. In the interest of publicity that emperor made it necessary for the party seeking a divorce to make his declaration in the presence of seven witnesses, all Roman citizens of full age. Divorce remained, however, a private legal act. Women could obtain divorce without any fault of their husbands. Under the Roman law of the early imperial period, there was a separation pronounced, first, between parties whose marriage engagement was not legally contracted; second, where parties were separated when the contract of espousals had been made but not cosummated by the actual marriage. This was known as repudium. Divortium was a separation of persons already married, and included divorce a mensâ et toro and a vinculo matrimonii.

Imperial Christian Legislation

In 331 Constantine the Great restricted the causes for divorce to three on the part of the man, viz., if he was a murderer, a poisoner, or a robber of graves;and three on the part of the woman, viz., if she was an adulteress, a poisoner, or a corupter of youth. Among soldiers an absence of four years was sufficient to entitle the petitioner to a divorce. This edict was ratified by Theodosius the Great and Honorius. Under Justinian several reasons for divorce were added, and liberty of divorce by mutual consent was restored by his nephew Justin (565-78). No change was now made in the Roman law until after a lapse of 340 years, when Leo the Philosopher (886-912) made a collection of laws known as the "Libri Basilici", from which he excluded the edicts of Justin.

English Legislation

According as Catholic doctrine penetrated more profoundly the medieval life, the laws of European nations were gradually accommodated to its demands. In this way, for example, the teaching of the Council of Trent (1563), which anathematized the error that matrimony could so far be dissolved by divorce that it was lawful to marry again, was universally accepted among the nations adhering to the Catholic Church. This council, however, introduced thereby no essential change in the divorce law of the Church. Originally, under the common law of England, there was no jurisdiction on the subject of divorce excepting in the ecclesiastical courts, they having jurisdiction in all matters relating to marriage and divorce, the restitution of conjugal rights, suits for limited divorce and for annulment of marriage. This followed from the Catholic doctrine that marriage, being a sacrament, could not be dossolved; for the same reason any question relative to its validity or to a suspension of conjugal relations must necessarily pertain to the ecclesiastical courts. The ecclesiastical law of England, though originating differently from the other branches of the common law and distinguished by special rules, was part of the unwritten law of the State, just as what are technically called the common law, the law of admiralty, and equity.

The Protestant Reformers rejected the sacramental theory of marriage, and agreed that absolute divorce should be granted for adultery and for malicious desertion, and that the innocent party might then remarry. As they also rejected the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts it was for some time a question among them whether marriage was dissolved ipso facto by the commission of one of these offences, or whether it was necessary to have the dissolution declared by public authority. Luther recommended that parish priest as the proper tribunal. Appeals were sometimes taken to the prince or soverign. Gradually "consistorium courts" were created, of both lay and ecclesiastical members, under sanction of the civil power. In England under Henry VIII, after his separation from the Catholic Church, the law relative to divorce remained practically unchanged. An effort was made in the time of Edward VI to secure the adoption of a new code of ecclesiastical laws, drafted mainly by Cranmer, under which separation a mensa et toro was not recognized and complete divorce was granted in cases of extreme conjugal faithlessness; in cases of conjgal desertion or cruelty; in cases where a husband not guilty of desertion of his wife, had been several years absent from her, provided there were reason to believe him dead; and in cases of such violent hatred as rendered it in the highest degree improbable that the husband and wife would survive their animosities and again love one another. Divorce was denied when both parties were guilty of unfaithfullness, and when only one was guilty the innocent party might marry again. The ecclesiastical court was to decide all questions concerning these causes. It is said by Howard (Hist. of Matrim. Institutions, p. 80) that the principles of this code, known as the "Reformatio Legum", were carried out in practice, though not enacted into law. He adds that "according to the ancient form of judgment divorce was probably still pronounced only a mesa et thoro; but whatever the shape of the decrees, there is strong evidence that from about 1548 to 1602, except for the short period of Mary's reign, 'the community, in cases of adultery, relied upon them as justifying a second act of matrimony'". He says also that throughout nearly the whole of Elizabeth's reign new marriages were freely contracted after obtaining divorce from unfaithful partners. However, in 1602 the Star Chamber pronounced a marriage invalid which had been contracted after separation from bed and board by the degree of an ecclesiastical judge (Foljambe's case, 3 Salk. 138).

Following this decision the canon law was administered in the English spiritual courts with such rigour that it required an Act of Parliament to permit a remarriage after divorce. In the tenth year of James I (1613) an Act was passed to restrain remarriage by one party while the other was alive, excepting, however, cases where sentences had been pronounced by an ecclesiastical courts. There were some cases where, after sentences had been pronounced by an ecclesiastical court, a second marriage was upheld, but the decisions are generally to the effect that a perfect marriage cannot be dissolved excepting by death. Oughton says (tit. 215) "that the marriage tie once perfected cannot be dissolved by man, but only by natural death. The parties may be separated, but they remain man and wife". The Puritans of England strongly advocated the right of divorce, but without effect, and until 1857 there were no English statute which permitted the granting of a decree of absolute divorce by any court, the only jurisdiction being vested in Parliament. Precedents of divorce by Parliament strictly so called are not found earlier than 1698, but it came to be understood that if a divorce a mensâ had been granted by the spiritual court, a divorce would be granted by Parliament absolutely dissolving the marriage, though only for the cause of adulterty on the part of the wife. By the Act of 1857 the entire jurisdiction in matrimonial questions was transferred to a new civil court for divorce and matrimonial causes, and since the judicature Act of 1873 this jurisdiction has been vested in the probate, divorce, and admiralty division of the High Court of Justice. Its power is restricted, however, to England alone. The principles upon which divorce legislation may be based and which may be traced in the legislation by those countries that permit divorce, are stated by Bishop (Marriage, Divorce, and Separation, §46, ed. of 1891) as follows: -

"Matrimony is natural right, to be forfeited only by some wrongful act. Therefore the government should permit every suitable person to be the husband or wife of another, who will substantially perform the duties of the matrimonial relation; and when it is in good faith entered into, and one of the parties without the other's fault so far fails in those duties as practically to frustrate its ends, the government should provide some means whereby, the failure being established and shown to be permanent, the innocent party may be freed from the mere legal bond of what has in fact ceased to be marriage, and left at liberty to form another alliance. The guilty party would have no claim to be protected in a second marriage; and whether it should be permitted to him or not is a question, not of right with him, but of public expediency, upon which there is considerable diversity of opinion."

Modern European Legislation

A full collection of laws and statistics relating to marriage and divorce in European countries will be found in the report of the United States Commissioner of Labor Carroll D. Wright, for 1889. It is therein stated that "prior to 1868 the ecclesiastical courts had in most of the countries named more or less complete jurisdiction over matrimonial causes, but the civil courts have now exclusive jurisdiction over such matters in all of them". In Austria-Hungary absolute divorce is not allowed to members of the Catholic Church. Prior to 1 January, 1876, all the cantons of Switzerland had their own peculiar laws of divorce, but subsequent to that date a general law governing the subject took effect. In Germany perpetual separation equivalent to limited divorce was abolished throughout the empire, and the causes for such separation were made causes for absolute divorce. In Hungary divorce has been legal for Protestants since 1786 and for Hebrews since 1863. The laws of their respective churches apply to Latin Catholics, Greek Catholics, and Orthodox Greeks. Question of divorce or validity of marriage among Protestants are subject to the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Excepting for Protestants and Hebrews, the ecclesiastical court of other bodies have jurisdiction. In case of mixed marriage the court of the defendant's confession has jurisdiction. In Italy, Spain, and Portugal, still Catholic countries, no absolute divorce is permitted. In Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Mexico, and Cuba, limited divorce alone is permitted.

The following causes in Austria and in Hungary for absolute divorce are typical: in Austria, adultery; commission of a crime punishable by five years imprisonment; malicious abandonment or non-appearance after one year's solicitation where the absentee's residence is known; assault endangering life or health; repeated cruelty; unconquerable aversion, on account of which both parties demand a divorce. In the last case a limited divorce or separation from bed and board must first be obtained. In Belgium, where the husband is at least twenty-five years of age and the wife twenty-one, and the parties have been married two years or longer, divorce may be obtained by mutual consent on certain terms and conditions, but must be approved by the courts. In France divorce was introduced by the law of 1792. This law was modified in 1798 and in 1803 (Code Napoléon), was subsequently abrogated in 1816, and reintroduced in 1884; the grounds of divorce being adultery of either party; excesses, cruelty, grave injury inflicted by one spouse on the other; condemnation to infamous penalty of either of the spouses; mutual and persevering agreement of the wedded to separate, if said consent is expressed and established as prescribed. By recent legislation, after a lapse of a fixed period of time, a decree of separation can be changed into a judgement of divorce on the application of either of the parties. (Civil Code., Sec. 307). In the German Empire perpetual judicial separations have been abolished, and all subjects of the empire, without regard to their religious status may avail themselves of the laws of divorce which exist in their respective states. In Prussia there are seven causes known as major causes for divorce and six as minor causes. Among the major causes are: false accusations of serious crimes preferred by one of the parties against the other, and endangering the life, honour, or office of the other spouse; among the minor causes are: insanity, disorderly conduct or mode of living, refusal of maintenance or support by the husband. It may be noted that in the divorce laws of European states there exists much similarity as regards the causes of divorce. In Scotland divorce was granted for adultry and malicious dessertion; the former since 1560; the latter since 1573. The injured party has the right to choose either a judicial separation or an absolute divorce. In Ireland the civil courts have no jurisdiction to grant decrees of absolute divorce. In Canada exclusive authority was conferred upon the Parliament by the Britain North America Act of 1867 (Sec. 91). At that time courts of divorce existed in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia, and they still continue to exercise their functions. Excepting in Prince Edward Island, the divorce courts appear to have been modelled upon the England court of divorce and matrimonial causes. A court of divorce and alimony was established in Prince Edward Island as early as 1836. In other provinces of Canada no divorce court has ever been constituted and divorces are granted only by special Act of Federal-Parliament. The courts of Quebec, however, can grant séparation de corps under the English divorce court practice and annul marriage on the ground of impotence.

In Australia, at the time of the formation of the federal Commonwealth, there were divorce courts in all or almost all of the constituent states. Under the Constitution (Act 63-64, Vict., ch. xii, part V, Sec. 51), power was granted to the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, comprising the states of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, and Western Australia, with respect to divorce and matrimonial causes and in relation to parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants. The object of this subsection is stated to have been to avoid "the great mistake made by the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America, who left the question to the states to deal with as they respectively thought proper" and "to provide for uniformity in the law of divorce" (Quick and Garran, Aust. Const., pp. 262-609). The local statutes in the various states still prevail, however, with the right of appeal to the High Court with respect to judgements of the Supreme Court of a state (Act of 1903, 2 Com. Stat., p. 148). In New Zealand, which does not form a part of the Australian Commonwealth, divorce is allowed for adultery on the part of the wife, and adultery with certain aggravating circumstances, or with cruelty, on the part of the husband (New Zealand Statutes, Vol. I, p. 229).

Divorce in the United States

Colonial Period (1607-1787)

At the time of the settlement of the various colonies which subsequently declared their independence of Great Britain, there were no ecclesiastical courts; as in England, therefore, the practice of special acts of legislature obtained. Sometimes it was in the form of a private statute directly dissolving the marriage; sometimes the court was empowered to investigate the cause and grant the divorce if the complaint was sustained. There are many instances of legislative divorces granted in the New England colonies, all being divorces a vinculo. Adultery and desertion were sufficient reasons, though male adultery would require additional circumstances. In the Southern colonies there was no court having jurisdiction to grant divorce, though in some of them an appeal for alimony would be considered in a court of equity. Under the Dutch government of New York divorce jurisdiction was exercised by the courts for absolute, as well as for limited, separation, but when the English took possession of the colony, this jurisdiction was no longer recognized. In Pennsylvania under the "Great Law of 1682" divorce was authorized for adultery. The legislature also granted divorces. In New Jersey there was no divorce jurisdiction granted the courts. It may be said, therefore, that outside of New England during the colonial period there was no such thing as a judicial divorce.

From 1787-1906

The Constitution of the United States does not grant the Federal Government any power over the subject of divorce. In this matter, therefore, Congress can legislate only for the District of Columbia and for the territories. The organic acts creating the territories give power to their legislatures over all "rightful subjects of legislation not inconstitent with the constitution of the laws of the United States"; special and general divorce laws are, therefore, within the power of territoral legislature, but by the Act of 30 July, 1886, all special divorce acts have been expressly forbidden. The various states of the Union succeeded to the full sovereign rights exercised by the Parliament of England over all subjects related to marriage and divorce, but in the absence of special divorce statutes, there being no tribunal having jurisdiction, the law would remain the same as in the colonies prior to the Revolution. However, all states of the Union have adopted divorce statutes, excepting the South Carolina, and have clothed the courts with full jurisdiction to administer relief. In most of the states and territories divorces a vinculo and a mensâ et toro are provided for, and in some of the states courts of equity take jurisdiction over special proceedings for a decree of nullity of marriage. In some states, however, decrees a mensâ are expressly forbidden. The causes for which decree may be granted vary from single cause of adultery on the part of either husband or wife (law of New York and the District of Columbia) to nine separate causes in the State of Washington, the last being known as the "omnibus provision", which permits a divorce for any other cause deemed by the court sufficient, provided that the court shall be satisfied that the parties can no longer live together. In most of the states there is no restriction upon the parties remarrying after divorce, though in some, as in New York, the court may forbid the guilty party to remarry during the lifetime of the innocent, and in others, as in Pennsylvania, marriage of the guilty party with a paramour during the lifetime of the innocent party is null and void.

Great uncertainty as to the effect of the divorce statutes of the different states has arisen where relief has been sought by a party whose husband or wife was resident of a different state from that in which the proceeding was brought. While it is a fundamental principle that the courts of any state have entire control over the citizens of that state in divorce proceedings, a different question arises where the husband is a resident of one state and the wife of another. The English doctrine that the domicile of the husband is that of the wife, irrespective of where she may actually be living during coverture, does not prevail in the United States. For the purposes of a divorce proceeding the wife may have a domicile separate from that of her husband. In consequence of this rule of American law it has frequently happened that actions for divorce have been initiated and carried to a conclusion without the respondent receiving any actual notice of the proceeding. This is made possible by provisions in the state statutes providing for service of notice by publication, where actual service cannot be had upon a respondent by reason of absence from the state. While decrees granted in accordance with the statutes of any particular state are valid in that state, there is no power to enforce a recognition of their validity in other states, and in consequence it frequently happens that a divorce may be valid in one state and invalid in another; the children of a second marriage legitimate in one state and illegitimate in another; the property rights of the former husband and wife terminated in one state and in full force in another. The Constitution of the United States (Art. IV, Sec. I) provides that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state, and the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." This provision, however, does not require the recognition of a divorce where one of the parties is not a citizen of the state that has granted the decree. Thus in case where a husband abandoned his wife without justifiable cause, and removed to another state and acquired a domicile therein, and the wife remained in the matrimonial domicile, since her domicile did not follow that of her husband when he sued for a divorce in the state of his new domicile, and a decree was rendered upon a merely constructive service of process, it was held by the Supreme Court of the United States that the court of the husband's domicile did not acquire such jurisdiction over the wife as would entitle a decree to obligatory enforcement in the state of her domicile, though the state in which the decree was rendered had power to enforce it within its borders, and the state of the wife's domicile had the power to give the decree efficacy if it saw fit to do so. (Haddock vs Haddock, 201, U.S., 562.) While the courts of the states called upon to administer divorce statutes receive their jurisdiction by reason of the theory adopted by the legislatures representing the actually predominant sentiment of the various communities that marriage results from a civil contract, bringing about a civil status with certain rights and duties appertaining to husband and wife, they by no means accept the theory that it is such a relation or status that the parties by their own agreement can dissolve it. The difference between the marriage relation and that of a contract is set out by Bishop in the following language: -- "Because the parties cannot mutually dissolve it; because an act of God incapacitating one to discharge its duties will not release it; because there is no accepted performance that will end it; because a minor of marriagable age can no more recede from it than an an adult; because it is not dissolved by failure of the original consideration; because no suit for damages will lie for the non-fulfillment of its duties; and because none of its other elements are those of contract but are all of status." (I, Marriage and Divorce, §46).

Keeping this distinction in mind, it will be perceived that a suit for divorce is not an action on a contract, but is a proceeding sui generis founded on the violation of duty enjoined by law and resembling more an action of tort than of contract. The law looks upon marriage as a permanent status, to be ended only by the death of one of the parties, a promise of competent persons to marry at their pleasure requiring a marriage licence merely to attest their competency. To change this status by divorce it is necessary to satisfy the court that the purpose of the marriage relation has been ended by the fault of the guilty party, and that greater evil will follow from maintaining the marriage status than from terminating it. Therefore, in theory, the divorce statutes embrace only such causes as are recognized as being of such a nature as to defeat the ends for which the marriage was entered into. In the great majority of the United States six causes as are included in this category: (1) adultery, (2) bigamy, (3) conviction of crime in certain classes of cases, (4) intolerable cruely, (5) wilful desertion for two years, (6) habitual drunkenness. These are recognized as just causes, either for absolute divorce or for divorce a mensâ. The following causes are also considered such impediments to a lawful marriage that upon their being made to appear, the courts will decree such marriages null and void, in some jurisdictions under a separate proceeding of nullity, and in others under the form of a proceeding for divorce. These causes are (1) impotence, (2) consanguinity and affinity properly limited, (3) existing marriage, (4) fraud, force, or coercion, (5) insanity unknown to the other party.

The growth of divorce in the United States under the general divorce law has been unprecedented, and exceeds in number those of any other modern nation, excepting Japan. An analysis of the statistics prepared by Carrol D. Wright, Commissioner of Labor, in 1889, showed the total number of divorces for a period of twenty years, from 1867 to 1887, to be 328, 716, and increase of 157 per cent, while the increase in population for the same period was 60 per cent. The Census Bulletin, upon marriage and divorce in the United States, issued by the Department of Labor and Commerce under authority of an Act of Congress, in 1908, shows that the total number of divorces for the entire country from 1887 to 1906 inclusive was 945, 625. For the earlier investigation covering the twenty years, from 1867 to 1886 inclusive, the number reported was 328, 716 or hardly more that one-third of the number reported in the second twenty years.

At the beginning of the forty-year period covered by the two investigations, divorces occurred at the rate of 10, 000 a year. At the end of that period the annual number was about 66, 000. This increase, however, must be considered in connection with the increase in population. An increase of 30 per cent in population between the years 1870 to 1880, was accompanied by an increase of 79 per cent in the number of divorces granted. In the next decade, 1880 to 1890, the population increased 25 per cent and divorces 70 per cent. In the following decade, 1890 to 1900, an increase of 21 per cent in population was accompanied by an increase of 66 per cent in the number of divorces. In the six years from 1900 to 1906, population, as estimated, increase 10. 5 per cent and divorces 29. 3 per cent. It thus appears at the end of the forty-year period that divorces were increasing about three times as fast as the population, while in the first decade, 1870 to 1880, they increased only about two and two-thirds as fast.

The divorce rate per 100, 000 population increased from 29 in 1870 to 82 in 1905. In the former year there was one divorce for every 3441 persons and in the latter year one for every 1218. The rate per 100, 000 married population was 81 in the year 1870 and 200 in the year 1900. This comparison indicates that divorce is at present two and one-half times as common, compared with married population, as it was forty years ago. Divorce rates appear to be much higher in the United States that in any of the foreign countries for which statistics relating to this subject have been obtained. Two-thirds of the total number of divorces granted in the twenty-year period covered by this investigation were granted to the wife. The most common single ground for divorce is desertion. This accounts for 38. 9 per cent of all divorces (period 1887 to 1906), 49. 4 per cent or almost one-half of those granted to the husband, and 33. 5 per cent or one-third of those granted to the wife. The next most important ground of divorce is, for husbands, adultery, and for wives, cruelty. Of the divorces granted to husbands (1887 to 1906), 28. 8 per cent were for adultery, and of those granted to wives 27. 5 per cent were cruelty. Only 10 per cent of the divorces granted to wives were for adultery of the husband, and 10. 5 per cent of divorces granted to husbands were for cruelty on the part of the wife. Drunkenness was the ground for divorce in 5. 3 per cent of the cases for which the wife brought suit, and in 1. 1 per cent of the cases in which the suit was brought by the husband. Intemperance was reported as an indirect or contributory cause for divorce in 5 per cent of the divorces granted to the husband, and in 18 per cent of the divorces granted to the wife, and appeared as a direct or indirect cause in 19. 5 per cent of all divorces, and 26. 3 per cent of those granted to wives, and 6. 1 per cent of those granted to husbands. Only 15 per cent of the divorces were returned as contested and probably in many of these cases the contesting was hardly more than a formality. Alimony was demanded in 18 per cent of the divorces granted to the wife and was granted in 12. 7 per cent. The proportion of husbands who asked for alimony was 2. 8 per cent and the proportion obtaining it was 2 per cent. The average duration of marriages terminated by divorce is about ten years. Sixty per cent or three-fifths last less than ten years and forty per cent last longer. Of the divorced couples known to have been married in the United States 88. 5 percent were married in the same state in which they were divorced. Of the divorced couples known to have been married in foreign countries 36. 9 per cent were married in Canada, 12. 7 per cent in England, 16. 1 per cent in Germany and 1. 9 per cent in Ireland. Children were reported in 39. 8 per cent of the total number of divorced cases. The proportion is much larger for divorces granted to the wife than for divorces granted to the husband; children being present in 46. 8 per cent of the former class of divorces and 26 per cent of the latter. A reason suggested for this is that the children are assigned by the court to the mothers, and to her, therefore, divorce does not imply separation from her children, while to the husband it involves a severance of the parental as well as the marital relation. In Canada during 1900 there were eleven divorces; in 1901 nineteen. In England there were 284 in 1902, as compared with 177 in 1901. In Germany at the same time there were about 10, 000 annually, and in France 21, 939 with a tendency towards a rapid increase. Among the Japanese there are about 100, 000 divorces per annum. It is estimated that about fifty per cent of divorced couples have children, and it is urged "that consideration for the children of divorced people should be a first concern in stimulating restrictive legislation". It has been stated that three-quarters of boys in two reformatories, one in Ohio and one in Illinois, come from families broken up by death or divorce "mainly by divorce" (The Divorce Question in New Hampshire, Rev. W. Stanley Emery).

Divorce Congress of 1906

A well concerted effort was made in 1906, upon the initiative of the State of Pennsylvania, to secure uniform legislation by the various states and territories of the Union so as to eliminate as far as possible fraudulent proceedings for divorce. It resulted in the meeting of a Divorce Congress in the City of Washington, where all of the states, excepting Nevada, Mississipi, and South Carolina, were presented, in addition to the District of Columbia and the territory of New Mexico. The outcome of this congress was the adoption of a form of statute designed to overcome flagrant evils arisong from lack of unifomity, and also from inherent objections to various existing methods of precedure. A summary of these points will shoe how far the existing statutes were considered to need amendement. Having in mind the evils that have arisen from migratory divorce (that is, where the plaintiff has left his or her own state to obtain a residence for the purpose of divorce in another) the congress recommended that all suits for divorce should be brought and prosecuted only in the state where one of the parties has a bona fide residence; that when the cours are given congizance of suits where the plaintiff was domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction at the time the cause of complaint arose, relief should not be granted unless the cause be included among those recognized in the foregin domicile, and the same rule should apply in the case of the defendant. At least two years residence should be required of one of the parties before jurisdiction should be assumed. The defendant should be given every opportunity to appear and make defence, and one accused as co-respondent should be permitted to defend in the same suit. Hearings and trials should always be before the court and not before a delegated representative of it, and in all uncontested cases, and in any other case where in the judgment of the court it is wise, a disinterested attorney should be assigned to defend the cause. No decree should be granted on affirmative proof aside from the admission of the respondent. A decree dissolving marriage so as to permit remarriage of either party should not become operative until the lapse of a reasonable time after hearing or trial upon the merits of the case. In an inhabitant of one state should go into another state or territory to obtain a divorce for a cause which occurred in the matrimonial domicile, or for a cause which would not authorize a divorce by the laws of the domicile, such divorce should have no force or effect in the state of the domicile. Fraud or collusion in obtaining or attempting to obtain divorces should be made a statutory crime. The legitimacy of chilren born during overture, except in the case of bigamous marriages, should not be affected by divorce of the parents. On the subject of the causes each state should legislate for its own citizens and the common sentiment of that state should be properly expressed by the enumeration of causes in its own statute. Those heretofore given are recognized as representing the view of the great majority as covering offences against the marriage contract of so serious a character as to defeat the purpose of the marital relation. The congress expressed the hope that the number of causes for divorce would be reduced rather than increased and declared its opinion that in such jurisdictions as New York and the District of Columbia, where the only cause is adultery, no change is called for. It was recommended that where conviction of crime is made a cause, it must be followed by imprisonment for two years, but no absolute divorce should be granted for insanity, and that desertion should not be a cause unless persisted in for at least two years. Practically the same causes for divorce a mensâ et toro were enumerated. The provisions of this statute have already been adopted in Delaware and New Jersey and are under consideration (1908) in other states. While the reforms thus suggested will not put an end to what is known as the divorce evil, it is believed that they will have the effect of safeguarding trials and abating fraud upon the courts.

Philosophical thinkers recognize the fact that the prevalence of divorce in the United States arises from two causes. The first of these causes is the gradual change in the attitude of society towards women in the recognition of their individual rights to their own property, and of their capacity to earn their own living in many vocations heretofore closed to them. The legal fiction that the identiy of th woman was merged in that of her husband has given place to a growing recognition of her individuality in all relations of life. This has weakened the dependence of women upon their husbands for support and has affected the concept of the family relation. The theory of the Protestant leaders of the sixteenth century, that marriage is but a civil contract, devoid of sacramental character, has been strenghtened by the vicissitudes of modern life, while the facility with which divorces can be obtained has tended to a constant increase of their number. Marriage, not being accounted as sacrament by non-Catholic Christians, is entered into with greater ease than a contract of far less moment affecting property alone. The knowledge that in case of disagreement the parties may obtain a divorce no doubt has its effect. The second cause is the gradual increase and development of irreligion and materialism among non-Catholic members of the community. Leaders of the Protestant Churches in the United States have become alarmed at the progress of divorce, and have been endeavouring in their various denominations to adopt such regulations as would restrict it to flagrant cases or abolish it entirely. It is evident that the prevalence of divorce is an indication of an unsound condition of society. Those who now endeavour to reform the civil statutes in the interest of honest trials, may suceed in abating some of the evils flowing from lax methods of administering the divorce statutes in some of the states, and in obtaining restrictive legislation in all of them, but it is not probable that the demoralization will be stopped until the majority of the people of the civilized nations return to the belief in the supernatural sanction of marriage and "that it is a sacramental union, productive of the graces necessary to bear with one another's shortcomings; and indissoluble union as that of soul and body, which can be dissoved only in death. This means a return to the Catholic view of marriage, and this return alone can remove the national evil of divorce". (SEE MARRIAGE; WOMAN; PARENTS; also the articles on the various states and countries for divorce legislation.)

TEBB, Essay on Adultery and Divorce; BECKER, Gallus and Charicles (for Roman and Greek customs and conditions); KENT, Commentaries on Am. Law; BISHOP, Marriage, Divorce and Separation; HOWARD, History of Matrimonial Institutions; WALTON, Scope and Interpretation of the Civil Code of Lower Canada; GEMMILL in Canadian Law Times (March, 1888); Report of the U. S Commissioner of Labor (Washington, 1889); Am. and English Encyl. of Law; Proceedings of the Nat. Divorce Congress (Washington, Philadelphia, 1906); OTTEN in The Messenger (April, 1904). For a full literature of the subject see Marriage and Divorce Bibliography of the World (Comparative Law Bureau of the American Bar Association, 1908).

WALTER GEORGE SMITH

Joseph Dixon

Archbishop of Armagh, Ireland, born at Coalisland, Co. Tyrone, in 1806; died at Armagh, 29 April, 1866. Having entered Maynooth College at the age of sixteen he was ordained priest in 1829. In 1834 he was appointed to the chair of Sacred Scripture and Hebrew, a post he worthily occupied for the next eighteen years. His class had an average of 200 students, amongst whom was John McEvilly, afterwards Archbishop of Tuam and a distinguished writer on Scriptural subjects. Dr. Dixon's professorship was signalized by his "Introduction to the Sacred Scriptures", a work highly praised by Cardinal Wiseman and which was very much needed at the time. The first edition appeared in 1852 and a second in 1875. As Primate of Armagh he held an important synod in 1854, at which all the bishops of the northern province assisted with their theologians. In the same year he began the heavy task of completed the unfinished cathedral of Armagh and almost accomplished the work before his death. In 1856 he formed the diocesan chapter consisting of thirteen members. During his incumbancy he brought some religious congregations into the diocese, viz. the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul (1855), who opened a house in Drogheda; the Marist Fathers (1851) who opened a college and novitiate in Dundalk, and the Vincentian Fathers who were placed in charge of the ecclesiastical seminary the same year. The primate was a stanch and fearless defender of the rights of the Holy See and at a public meeting in Drogheda denounced Napoleon III for complicity in the acts of the Italian revolutionists. His speech and subsequent letter to the "Freeman's Journal" created a great sensation and the emperor made them a subject of complaint to Pius IX. The primate was the organizer of the Irish Brigade in the papal service.

AMBROSE COLEMAN

Jan Dlugosz

(Lat. LONGINUS).

An eminent medieval Polish historian, b. at Brzeznica, 1415; d. 19 May, 1480, at Cracow. He was one of the twelve sons born to John and Beata. He received his primary education in Nowy Korczyn, then entered the Academy of Cracow, where he studied literature and philosophy. He was ordained priest in 1440, and appointed secretary of Cardinal Zbigniew Olesnicki, Bishop of Cracow. Later he became a prelate of the cathedral and preceptor for the children of the Polish King, Casimir IV, Jagielonczyk. He was employed as the ambassador of the Polish king to different foreign countries, and especially to Bohemia and Hungary, where he settled political disturbances. His ecclesiastical superiors sent him as their representative to Pope Eugenius IV, and as delegate to the Council of Basle. He decline the Archbishopric of Prague, but shortly before his death was appointed Archbishop of Lemberg. Dlugosz expended his great income for religious and philantrophic purposes; he founded both churches and monasteries, also burses for the maintenance of poor scholars.

The most beautiful church which he founded, and beneath which he was buried, is in Cracow, and is called Na Skalce (meaning, "Upon Rock", as the church was built on an enormous rock). As a Polish historian he outranks all who preceded him. He was not content to repeat the statements made by other chroniclers, but examined for himself the oldest Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian, Ruthenian, and German documents, to understand which thoroughly he studied, in his old age, several foreign languages. His works offer abundant and reliable material not only for Polish, but also for general, history.

Dlugosz paid less attention to beauty of style than to veracity of statement, and wrote in a philosophic manner, as one who saw the action and purposes of Providence in all historical events. His great history of Poland (Historia Polonica in twelve volumes) was composed by order of his friend and master Cardinal Olesnicki. The works of Dlugosz were first published incompletely in 1614, and fully in 1711. The best edition is that in fourteen volumes by Carl Mecherzynski: "Joannis Dlugosz Senioris Canonici Cracoviensis Opera Omnia" (Cracow, 1863-87). It includes his heraldic work "Banderia Prutenorum", also his "Life of St. Stanislaus", "Life of St. Kinga", lives of many Polish bishops (Sees of Wroclaw, Poznan, Plock, Cracow, etc.), "Liber beneficiorum diœcesis Cracoviensis", "Lites ac rec gestæ inter Polonos ordinemque Cruciferorum", "Annales seu cronicæ incliti regni Poloniæ".

JOHN GODRYCZ

Marian Dobmayer

A distinguished Benedictine theologian, born 24 October, 1753, at Schwandorf, Bavaria; died 21 December, 1805, at Amberg, Bavaria. He first entered the Society of Jesus, and after its suppression in 1773 joined the Benedictines in the monastery of Weissenohe, Diocese of Bamberg, where he was professed in 1775, and in 1778 ordained priest. He was successively professor of philosophy at Neuberg, Bavaria (1781-87), of dogmatic theology and ecclesiastical history at Amberg (1787-94), and of dogmatic theology and patrology at the University of Ingolstadt (1794-99). On the reorganization of the latter school in 1799 he returned his monastery of Weissenohe, where he remained until its secularization. He them retired to Amberg, where he taught theology until his death. In 1789 he published at Amberg a "Conspectus Theologiæ Dogmaticæ". His chief work is the "Systema Theologiæ Catholicæ", edited after his death by Th. P. Senestrey in eight volumes (Sulzbach, 1807-19). The work is very learned and devoid of all harshness in its controversial parts.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Martin Dobrizhoffer

Missionary, b. in Graz, Styria, 7 Sept., 1717; d. in Vienna, 17 July 1791. He became a Jesuit in 1736, and twelve years later set out for the missions of South America, where he laboured among the Guaranis and the Abipones for eighteen years. On the expulsion of the Jesuits from the Spanish possessions in 1767, he returned to his native land. The Empress Maria Theresa frequently sent for Dobrizhoffer that she might hear his adventures from his own lips; and she is said to have taken great pleasure in his cheerful and animated conversation. He is the author of a work in three volumes entitled "Historia de Abiponibus, equestri bellicosaque Paraguaina natione" etc. (Vienna, 1783-1784), a German translation of which, by Professor Keil of the University of Pesth, was published in Vienna the same year. This work is of great ethnological value. In the preface he says, "A seven years residence in the four colonies of the Abipones has afforded me opportunities of closely observing the manners, customs, superstitions, military discipline, slaughters inflicted and received, political and economical regulations, together with the vicissitudes of the colonies". He further declares that what he learned amongst the Paraguayans in the course of eighteen years, what he himself beheld in the colonies of the Indians and the Spaniards, in frequent and long journeys, through woods, mountains, plains and vast rivers, he sets forth, if not in an eloquent and brilliant narrative, certainly in a candid and an accurate one, which is at least deserving of credit. In the course of the work, Dobrizhoffer frequently takes occasion to refute and expose the erroneous statements of other writers respecting the Jesuits in Paraguay, and the malicious calumnies by which the ruin of their institutions in that country was unhappily effected. The English translation (An Account of the Abipones, an Equestrian People of Paraguay, London. 1822), commonly ascribed to Southey, is the work of Sara Coleridge, daughter of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who judged it a performance "unsurpassed for pure mother-English by anything I have read for a long time". Dobrizhoffer in 1733 was appointed preacher to the Court in Vienna, a post which he held till his death.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Docetae

(Greek Doketai.)

A heretical sect dating back to Apostolic times. Their name is derived from dokesis, "appearance" or "semblance", because they taught that Christ only "appeared" or "seemed to be a man, to have been born, to have lived and suffered. Some denied the reality of Christ's human nature altogether, some only the reality of His human body or of His birth or death. The word Docetae which is best rendered by "Illusionists", first occurs in a letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (190-203) to the Church at Rhossos, where troubles had about the public reading of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. Serapion at first unsuspectingly allowed but soon after forbade, this, saying that he had borrowed a copy from the sect who used it, "whom we call Docetae". He suspected a connection with Marcionism and found in this Gospel "some additions to the right teaching of the Saviour". A fragment of apocryphon was discovered in 1886 and contained three passages which savoured strongly of Illusionism. The name further occurs in Clement of Alexandria (d. 216), Strom., III, xiii, VII, xvii, where these sectaries are mentioned together with the Haematites as instances of heretics being named after their own special error. The heresy itself, however, is much older, as it is combated in the New Testament. Clement mentions a certain Julius Cassianus as ho tes dokeseos exarchon, "the founder of Illusionism". This name is known also to St. Jerome and Theodoret; and Cassianus is said to be a disciple of Valentinian, but nothing more is known of him. The idea of the unreality of Christ's human nature was held by the oldest Gnostic sects and can not therefore have originated with Cassianus. As Clement distinguished the Docetae from other Gnostic sects, he problably knew some sectaries the sum-total of whose errors consisted in this illusion theory; but Docetism, as far as at present known, as always an accompaniment of Gnosticism or later of Manichaeism. The Docetae described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, i-iv, X, xii) are likewise a Gnostic sect; these perhaps extended their illusion theory to all material substances.

Docetism is not properly a Christian heresy at all, as it did not arise in the Church from the misundertanding of a dogma by the faithful, but rather came from without. Gnostics starting from the principle of antagonism between matter and spirit, and making all salvation consist in becoming free from the bondage of matter and returning as pure spirit to the Supreme Spirit, could not possibly accept the sentence, "the Word was made flesh", in a literal sense. In order to borrow from Christianity the doctrine of a Saviour who was Son of the Good God, they were forced to modify the doctrine of the Incarnation. Their embarrassment with this dogma caused many vacinations and inconsistencies; some holding the indwelling of an Aeon in a body which was indeed real body or humanity at all; others denying the actual objective existence of any body or humanity at all; others allowing a "psychic", but not a "hylic" or really material body; others believing in a real, yet not human "sidereal" body; others again accepting the of the body but not the reality of the birth from a woman, or the reality of the passion and death on the cross. Christ only seemed to suffer, either because He ingeniously and miraculously substituted someone else to bear the pain, or because the occurence on Calvary was a visual deception. Simon Magus first spoke of a "putative passion of Christ and blasphemously asserted that it was really he, Simon himself, who underwent these apparent sufferings. "As the angels governed this world badly because each angel coveted the principality for himself he [Simon] came to improve matters, and was transfigured and rendered like unto the Virtues and Powers and Angels, so that he appeared amongst men as man though he was no man and was believed to have suffered in Judea though he had not suffered" (passum in Judea putatum cum non esset passus -- Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I, xxiii sqq.). The mention of the demiurgic angels stamps this passage as a piece of Gnosticism. Soon after a Syrian Gnostic of Antioch, Saturninus or Saturnilus (about 125) made Christ the chief of the Aeons, but tried to show that the Savior was unborn (agenneton) and without body (asomaton) and without form (aneideon) and only apparently (phantasia) seen as man (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., XXIV, ii).

Another Syrian Gnostic, Cerdo, who came to Rome under Pope Hyginus (137) and became the master of Marcion, taught that "Christ, the Son of the Highest God, appeared without birth from the Virgin, yea without any birth on earth as man". All this is natural enough, for matter not being the creation of the Highest God but of the Demiurge, Christ could have none of it. This is clearly brought out by Tertullian in his polemic against Marcion. According to this heresiarch (140) Christ, without passing through the womb of Mary and endowed with only a putative body, suddenly came from heaven to Capharnaum in the fifteenth year of Tiberius; and Tertullian remarks: "All these tricks about a putative corporeality Marcion has adopted lest the truth of Christ's birth should be argued from the reality of his human nature, and thus Christ should be vindicated as the work of the Creator [Demiurge] and be shown to have human flesh even as he had human birth" (Adv. Marc., III, xi). Tertullian further states that Marcion's chief disciple, Apelles, sightly modified his master's system, accepting indeed the truth of Christ's flesh, but strenously denying the truth of His birth. He contended that Christ had an astral body made of superior substance, and he compared the Incarnation to the appearance of the angel to Abraham. This, Tertullian sarcastically remarks, is getting from the frying pan into fire, de calcariâ in carbonariam. Valentinus the Egyptian attempted to accommodate his system still more closely to Christian doctrine by admitting not merely the reality of the Saviour's body but even a seeming birth, saying that the Saviour's body passed through Mary as through a channel (hos dia solenos) though he took nothing from her, but had a body from above. This approximation to orthodoxy, however, was only apparent, for Valentinus distinguished between Christ and Jesus. Christ and the Holy Ghost were emanations from the Aeons together proceeded Jesus the Saviour, who became united with the Messias of the Demiurge.

In the East, Marinus and the school of Bardesanes, though not Bardesanes himself, held similar views with regard to Christ's astral body and seeming birth. In the West, Ptolemy reduced Docetism to a minimum by saying that Christ was indeed a real man, but His substance was a compound of the pneumatic and the psychic (spiritual and ethereal). The pneumatic He received from Achamoth or Wisdom, the psychic from the Demiurge, His psychic nature enabled him to suffer and feel pain, though He possessed nothing grossly material. (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I, xii, II, iv). As the Docetae objected to the reality of the birth, so from the first they particularly objected to the reality of the passion. Hence the clumsy attempts at substitution of another victim by Basilides and others. According to Basilides, Christ seemed to men to be a man and to have performed miracles. It was not, however, Christ, who suffered but Simon of Cyrenes who was constrained to carry the cross and was mistakenly crucified in Christ's stead. Simon having received Jesus' form, Jesus returned Simon's and thus stood by and laughed. Simon was crucified and Jesus returned to his father (Irenaeus, Adv. Char., 1, xxiv). According to some apocrypha it was Judas, not Simon the Cyrenean, who was thus substituted. Hippolytus describes a Gnostic sect who took the name of Docetae, though for what reason is not apparent, especially as their semblance theory was the least pronounced feature in their system. Their views were in close affinity to those of the Valentians. The primal Being is, so to speak, the seed of a fig-tree, small in size but infinite in power; from it proceed three Aeons, tree, leaves, fruit, which, multiplied with the perfect number ten, become thirty. These thirty Aeons together fructify one of themselves, from whom proceeds the Virgin-Saviour, a perfect representation of the Highest God. The Saviour's task is to hinder further transference of souls from body to body, which is the work of the Great Archon, the Creator of the world. The Saviour enters the world unnoticed, unknown, obscure. An angel announced the glad tidings to Mary. He was born and did all the things that are written of him in the Gospels. But in baptism he received the figure and seal of another body besides that born of the Virgin. The object of this was that when the Archon condemned his own peculiar figment of flesh to the death of the cross, the soul of Jesus--that soul which had been nourished in the body born of the Virgin--might strip off that body and nail it to the accursed tree. In the pneumatic body received at baptism Jesus could triumph over the Archon, whose evil intent he had eluded.

This heresy, which destroyed the very meaning and purpose of the Incarnation, was combated even by the Apostles. Possibly St. Paul's statement that in Christ dwelt the fullness of the Godhead corporaliter (Col., i, 19, ii, 9) has some reference to Docetic errors. Beyond doubt St. John (I John, i, 1-3, iv, I-3; II John, 7) refers to this heresy; so at least it seemed to Dionysius of Alexandria (Eusebius, H. E., VII, xxv) and Tertullian (De carne Christi, xxiv). In sub-Apostolic times this sect was vigorously combated by St. Ignatius and Polycarp. The former made a warning against Docetists the burden of his letters; he speaks of them as "monsters in human shape" (therion anthropomorphon) and bids the faithful not only not to receive them but even to avoid meeting them. Pathetically he exclaims: If, as some godless men [atheoi], I mean unbelievers, say, He has suffered only in outward appearance, they themselves are nought but outward show. why am I in bonds? Why should I pray to fight with wild beasts? Then I die for nothing, then I would only be lying against the Lord" (Ad Trall. x; Eph., vii, xviii; Smyrn., i-vi). In St. Ignatius' day Docetism seems to have been closely connected with Judaism (cf. Magn viii, 1 x, 3; Phil, vi, viii). Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians re-echoes I John, iv 2- 4; to the same purpose. St. Justin nowhere expressly combats Docetic errors, but he mentions several Gnostics who were notorious for their Docetic aberrations, as Basilideans and Valentinians, and in his "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew" he strongly emphasizes the birth of Christ from the Virgin. Tertullian wrote a treatise "On the flesh of Christ" and attacked Docetic errors in his "Adversus Marcionem". Hippolytus in his "Philosophoumena" refutes Docetism in the different Gnostic errors which he enumerates and twice gives the Docetic system as above referred to.

The earlier Docetism seemed destined to die with the death of Gnosticism, when it received a long lease of life as parasitic error to another heresy, that of Manichaeism. Manichaean Gnostics started with a two-fold eternal principle, good (spirit) and evil (matter). In order to add Christian soteriology to Iranian dualism, they were forced, as the Gnostics were, to tamper with the truth of the Incarnation. Manichees distinguished between a Jesus patibilis and a Jesus impatibilis or Christ. The latter was the light as dwelling in, or symbolized by, or personified under, the name of the Sun; the former was the light as imprisoned in matter and darkness; of which light each human soul was a spark. Jesus patibilis was therefore but a sign of the speech, an abstraction of the Good, the pure light above. In the reign of Tiberius Christ appears in Judea, Son of the Eternal Light and also Son of Man; but in the latter expression "man" is a technical Manichaean term for the Logos or World-Soul; both anthropos and pneuma are emanations of the Deity. Though Christ is son of man He has only a seeming body, and only seemingly suffers, His passion being called mystical fiction of the cross. It is obvious that this doctrine borrowed from that of the Incarnation nothing but a few names. Scattered instances of Docetism are found as far West as Spain among the Priscillianists of the fourth and the fifth century. The Paulicians in Armenia and the Selicians in Constantinople fostered these errors. The Paulicians existed even in the tenth century, denying the reality of Christ's birth and appealing to Luke, vii, 20. God, according to them, sent an angel to undergo the passion. Hence they worshipped not the cross but the Gospel, Christ's word. Among the Slavs the Bogomilae renewed the ancient fancy that Jesus entered Mary's body by the right ear, and received from her but an apparent body. In the West a council of Orléans in 1022 condemned thirteen Catharist heretics for denying the reality of Christ's life and death. In modern theosophic and spiritist circles this early heresy is being renewed by ideas scarcely less fanstastic than the wildest vagaries of old.

J.P. ARENDZEN

Docimium

A titular see of Phrygia in Asia Minor. This city, as appears from its coins where the inhabitants are called Macedonians, must have been founded by Antigonos Dokimos. Its name is written Dokimeion, Dokimia Kome, Dokimaion, later Dokimion. It was famous for its marble-quarries, and is now identified with Istcha Kara Hissar, a village north-east of Afion Kara Hissar, in the vilayet of Brusa. On this site have been found many Christian inscriptions, later than Constantine. Docimium was a suffragan of Synnada in Phrygia Salutaris. Six or seven bishops are known, from 344 to 879 (Lequien, Or. Christ., I, 853); another bishop is mentioned in an inscription.

TEXIER, Description de l'Asie Mineure, I, 149; LEAKE, Asia Minor, 54; RAMSAY, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, passim and 742; IDEM in Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire (Rome, 1882), II, 290; PERDRIZET in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique (1900), XXIV, 291.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Doctor

(Lat. docere, to teach)

Doctor, the title of an authorized teacher. In this general sense the term occurs in the O. T.; the "doctors" are mentioned with the "princes and ancients" (Deut., xxix, 10; xxxi, 28), and Azarias prophesies (II Paral., xv, 3) that "many days shall pass in Israel, without the true God, and without a priest a teacher, and without the law" (absque sacerdote doctore, et absque lege). It was the duty of these doctors to expound the law, and this they performed at the time of Christ, who was found in the Temple "in the midst of the doctors" (St. Luke, ii, 46). Another meeting of Our Lord with the "doctors of the law" is recorded in St. Luke, v, 17. The later Jewish teachers also received the title (doctor gemaricus, doctor mischnicus -- see Talmud). Under the New Law the doctors are those who have received a special gift or charisma (see CHARISMATA) such as the "prophets and doctors" of the Church at Antioch (Acts, xiii, 1), and of whom St. Paul says that "God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors (1 Cor., xii, 28; Eph., iv, 11). St. Paul speaks of himself as a doctor of the Gentiles in faith and truth (I Tim., ii, 7), and Doctor gentium is one of the titles given him in the liturgy. In the early Church, teachers in the catechetical schools were known as doctores audientium (Cyprian, Ep. xxix, ed. Hartel); and finally, in the course of time, some of the most illustrious theologians were designated as "Doctors of the Church" (q.v.).

The use of Doctor as an academic title dates from the founding of the medieval universities. Before these were regularly organized, any teacher who gathered about him a number of students was a doctor, dominus, or magister. During the first half of the twelfth century, the title Doctor acquired a more special significance, though it still implied personal excellence rather than official position. The "Four Doctors" who succeeded Irnerius at Bologna were the distinguished jurists, Martinus (died before 1166), Bulgarus (died 1166), Hugo (died 1168), and Jacobus (died 1178). But when the doctors formed a collegium they prescribed conditions on which other persons might become members of the teaching body, and thus laid the foundation of the system of academic degrees. The doctorate was first granted in civil law (doctores legum), later in canon law (doctores decretorum), and, during the thirteenth century, in medicine, grammar, logic, and philosophy. The doctorate in music was conferred at Oxford and Cambridge in the fifteenth century. For graduates in arts and theology, magister was more generally employed than doctor, but for a long time these titles were synonymous. The English universities, adopting the usage of Paris, at first designated teachers of law as doctors, and professors of theology as masters; but in the course of time the former title was given to all the superior faculties, and the latter was reserved for grammar and arts. In Germany, doctor and magister were interchangeable (Kaufmann, "Geschichte" etc., II, 268 sqq.), and though the mastership is no longer conferred as a separate degree, a trace of the medieval practice is still found in the diploma which styles its recipient "Doctor of Philosophy and Master of Arts".

Bologna at first conferred only the doctorate, but Paris and the English universities very soon introduced the preparatory degrees of baccalaureate and licentiate. Later, it is true, the licentiate was granted in the Italian university also at the first examination (privata); but this merely implied permission to proceed to the second, more formal, examination (publica) in which the licentia docendi was given. At Paris, the licentiate meant a real authorization to teach, besides being a pre-requisite for admission to the final examination (inceptio) at which the doctorate was conferred. There was a corresponding difference in the length of the course for the degree. Bologna required six years of study for the doctorate in canon law, and seven or eight for the doctorate in civil law; the student might begin his course at the age of fourteen and become a doctor at twenty or twenty-one. At Paris the statutes drawn up in 1215 by the Cardinal Legate Robert de Courçon provided that no one should lecture in theology as a master unless he was thirty-five years of age, had studied for eight years, and taken a five-years' course in theology. According to Denifle (Universitäten, 100-102), the eight years meant three years in arts and five years in theology. (Cf. Rashdall, "Universities", I, 462 sqq.) At Oxford, candidates who had already taken the M. A. degree were required to study theology seven years more for the licentiate. In medicine, M. A. candidates had a six-years' course for the doctorate. For the subjects required in these courses see UNIVERSITY. (Cf. Rasbdall, op. cit., II, 452 sq.)

In regard to examinations there seems to have been considerable leniency: at times they were reduced to mere formalities, at other times they were dispensed with. The degree was awarded by the chancellor on the advice of the regent masters of the faculty as to the candidate's fitness. The ceremony of inception was conducted by a regent; it consisted in the tradition of the book and ring, the imposition of the biretta, and the kiss of fellowship. At Paris, however, the degree in theology was conferred by the chancellor himself, who placed the biretta upon the candidate's head with the words, "Incipiatis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen." Then followed a disputation (aulica) in which the chancellor, the masters, and one of the bachelors took part. It was customary also to hold, on the evening before inception, an elaborate disputation known as vesperiœ (see, for details, "Chartularium", II, App., p. 693).

Among the various doctorates, that in theology ranked first. It was no uncommon thing for those who had received the degree in the other faculties to take additional courses for the S. T. D. In the German universities, for instance, licentiates in law or medicine might become bachelors in theology after five years of theological study; they would then be obliged to pursue the course prescribed for the other candidates. Conversely, theologians were sometimes permitted to follow courses in civil law and medicine. This privilege was granted to Bologna by Clement V (10 March, 1310) for a period of ten years but it applied only to ecclesiastical persons other than priests, religious, and bishops elect. It was renewed twice by John XXII (1317 and 1330); but when the university (1343-44) petitioned for an indefinite extension of the privilege, Clement VI refused. Innocent VI, however, renewed it (30 June, 1360) for ten years (Denifle, op. cit., 209).

The chief significance of the doctorate lay in the fact that it authorized the recipient to teach everywhere without undergoing further examination -- jus ubique docendi. This prerogative developed gradually out of the licentia docendi which the degree itself implied, i. e. the right to teach in the university which conferred the doctorate. But as the older universities, Bologna, Paris, and Oxford, grew in importance and attracted students from all parts, the idea naturally spread that their graduates had the right to teach everywhere. Subsequently, this authorization was expressly granted to newly founded universities: by Gregory IX to Toulouse (1233), and by Alexander IV to Salamanca (1255). It was long, however, before the universities came to a mutual recognition of their degrees. Paris held tenaciously to its rights; Oxford was more liberal, but would not permit a Parisian doctor to teach merely on the strength of his degree. The doctors themselves were not always anxious to exercise their prerogative; the teaching devolved in large measure upon the bachelors, and the masters were classified as regents (those who taught) and as nonregents, who were content with the prestige implied by their degree or were eager for other occupations.

The essential meaning of the doctorate as fixed by the medieval universities is preserved in modern academic usage; the degree implies a qualification to teach. It has, however, undergone various modifications which are due partly to the development of the sciences and partly to changes in educational theory and practice. The degree, Doctor of Laws, is often conferred as an honorary title. The doctorate in theology, or divinity, has been retained by Catholic institutions as a degree to be given either after a course of study and an examination or as a distinction (honoris causa); while the tendency among non-Catholic universities is to confer it only as an honorary degree. Of late the doctorate in philosophy has attained great importance, and its value has been enhanced as the result of stricter requirements. For this and for the other doctorates, research is now generally considered the principal qualification, and in consequence the candidate's work is becoming more specialized.

The influence of the Holy See, in regard to the doctorate, especially in theology, has been exerted in various ways, e.g. by authorizing universities to confer the degree, by prescribing through papal legates the conditions for obtaining it, and by correcting abuses, notably laxity of requirements, which crept in from time to time. The historical details will be found in the article UNIVERSITY. Legislation concerning the ecclesiastical side of the subject may be summarized as follows: --

• 1. The power of creating doctors belongs to the pope; but he may, and often does, delegate it to universities, seminaries, and other institutions of learning. Charters granted by civil authority are valid; but to obtain canonical recognition, doctorates in theology and canon law must be conferred in virtue of pontifical authorization.
• 2. The candidate for the degree must he a baptized Christian and must subscribe to the profession of faith formulated by Pius IV. As a rule, only priests receive the doctorate in theology and canon law. It is not, however, necessary that the recipient should be in Sacred orders. Laymen as well as priests are allowed to appear as advocates before the Roman tribunals (Rota, Signatura) and they are required to have the doctorate at least in Canon law (Const. "Sapienti consilio", 29 June, 1908).
• 3. The doctoral biretta, or four-cornered cap, may be worn on academic occasions, but not in choir (Cong. of Rites, "In Venusina", 1844, and reply to the Archbishop of Santiago de Chile, 6 Sept., 1895); the ring may be worn at all times except at Mass and other ecclesiastical functions (Cong. of Rites, 12 Feb., 1892).
• 4. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, c. ii, "de Ref.") decreed that a bishop must be either doctor or licentiate in theology or in canon law; if a religious, he should have proper testimonials from his superiors. It enacted the same requirement for the archdeacon (Sess. XXIV, c. xii, "de Ref."). Regarding the vicar capitular and, the pœnitentiarius, it prescribed that they should either have the degree or be otherwise well qualified. The Congregation of Studies recently decided (7 March, 1908) that the penitentiary and theologian of the cathedral chapter, if not already doctors, must receive the degree within a year. The Const. "Sapienti consilia" (29 June, 1908) prescribes the doctorate in theology and Canon law for the officials of the Rota and Signatura. It has been a matter of controversy whether the vicar-general is obliged to be a doctor and whether the Tridentine decree concerning the archdeacon is still in force. For the diversent opinions, see Card. Gennari, "Questioni Canoniche" (Rome, 1908), pp. 372, 292. The whole tenor of ecclesiastical legislation has been in favour of requirements which secure scientific qualifications in those who are appointed to official positions in the Church.

ERMAN-HORN, Bibliographie d. deutschen Universitäten (Leipzig, 1904), I, 252; DENIFLE, Die Universitäten des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1885); KAUFMANN, Die Gesch. d. deutschen Universitäten (Stuttgart, 1888); RASHDALL, The Universities of Europe, etc. (Oxford, 1895); LAURIE, The Rise and Early Constitution of Universities (New York, 1898); BATTANDIER, Annuaire Pontifical (Paris, 1906).

DOCTORS, SURNAMES OF FAMOUS

It was customary in the Middle Ages to designate the more celebrated among the doctors by certain epithets or surnames which were supposed to express their characteristic excellence or dignity. This was especially the case with the doctors in law and theology. The following list exhibits the principal surnames with the dates of death.

Doctors in Theology: ==

Abstractionum == Francis Mayron, O. F. M., 1325 or 1327.

Acutissimus == Sixtus IV, 1484.

Acutus == Gabriel Vasquez, S. J., 1604.

Amœnus == Robert Conton, O. F. M., 1340.

Angelicus == St. Thomas Aquinas, O. P., 1274.

Arca testamenti == St. Anthony of Padua, 1231.

Authenticus == Gregory of Rimini, O. S. A., 1358.

Averroista et philosophiœ parens == Urbanus, O. S. M., 1403.

Beatus et fundatissimus == Ægidius of Colonna, O. S. A., 1316.

Bonus == Walter Brinkley, O. F. M., 1310.

Christianus == Nicholas of Cusa, 1464.

Clarus == Louis of Montesinos, 1621.

Clarus ac subtilis == Denis of Cîteaux, 15th cent.

Collectivus == Landolfo Caracciolo, O. F. M., 1351.

Columna doctorum == William of Champeaux, O. S. B., 1121.

Contradictionum == Johann Wessel, 1489.

Divinus, Ecstaticus == John Ruysbroeck, Can. Reg., 1381.

Doctor doctorum, Scholasticus == Anselm of Laon, 1117.

Dulcifluus == Antonius Andreas, O. F. M., 1320.

/>Ecstaticus == Denys the Carthusian, 1471.

Eminens == St. John of Matha, O. Trin., 1213.

Emporium theologiœ == Laurent Gervais, O. P., 1483.

Excellentissimus == Antonio Corsetti, 1503.

Eximius == Francisco Suarez, S . J., 1617.

Facundus == Petrus Aureoli, O. F. M., 1322.

Famosissimus == Petrus Alberti, O. S. B., 1426.

Famosus == Bertrand de la Tour O. F. M., 1334.

Fertilis == Francis of Candia, O. F. M., 15th cent.

Flos mundi == Maurice O'Fiehely, O. F. M., Abp. of Tuam, 1513.

Fundamentalis == Joannes Faber of Bordeaux, 1350.

Fundatissimus == see Beatus.

Fundatus == William Ware, O. F. M., 1270.

Illibatus == Alexander Alamannicus, O. F. M., l5th cent.

Illuminatus == Francis Mayron, O. F. M., 1325-27; Raymond Lully, O. F. M., 1315.

Illuminatus et sublimis == Joannes Tauler, O. P., 1361.

Illustratus == Franciscus Picenus, O. F. M., 14th cent.

Illustris == Adam of Marisco, O. F. M., 1308.

Inclytus == William Mackelfield, O. P., 1300.

Ingeniosissimus == Andrew of Newcastle, O. F. M., 1300.

Inter Aristotelicos Aristotelicissimus == Haymo of Faversham, O. F. M., 1244.

Invincibilis == Petrus Thomas, O. F. M., 14th cent.

Irrefragibilis == Alexander of Hales, O. F. M., 1245.

Magister Sententiarum == Peter Lombard, 1164.

Magnus == Albertus Magnus, O. P., 1280; Gilbert of Cîteaux, O. Cist., 1280.

Marianus == St. Anselm of Canterbury, O. S. B., 1109.

Mellifluus == St. Bernard, O. Cist., 1153.

Mirabilis == Antonio Perez, S. J., 1649; Roger Bacon, O. F. M., 1294.

Moralis == Gerard Eudo, O. F. M., 1349.

Notabilis == Pierre de l'Ile, O. F. M., 14th cent.

Ordinatissimus == Johannes de Bassolis, O. F. M., c. 1347.

Ornatissimus et sufficiens == Petrus de Aquila, O. F. M., 1344.

Parisiensis == Guy de Perpignan, O. Carm., 1342.

Planus et utilis == Nicolas de Lyre, O. F. M., 1340.

Prœclarus == Peter of Kaiserslautern, O. Præm., 1330.

Prœstantissimus == Thomas Netter (of Walden), O. Carm., 1431.

Profundissimus == Paul of Venice, O. S. A., 1428; Gabriel Biel, Can. Reg., 1495; Juan Alfonso Curiel, O. S. B., 1609.

Profundus == Thomas Bradwardine, 1349.

Refulgidus == A1exander V, 1410.

Resolutissimus == Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, O. P., 1334.

Resolutus == John Bacon, O. Carm., 1346.

Scholasticus == Peter Abelard, 1142; Gilbert de la Porrée, 1154; Peter Lombard, 1164; Peter of Poitiers, 1205; Hugh of Newcast1e, O. F. M., 1322.

Seraphicus == St. Bonaventure, O. F. M., 1274.

Singularis et invincibilis == William of Occam, O. F. M., 1347 or 1359.

Solemnis == Henry of Ghent, 1293.

Solidus, Copiosus == Richard of Middleton, O. F. M, 1300.

Speculativus == James of Viterbo, O. S. A., 1307.

Sublimis == Francis de Bachone, O. Carm., 1372; Jean Courte-Cuisse, 1425.

Subtilis == Duns Scotus, O. F. M., 1308.

Subtilissimus == Peter of Mantua, 14th cent.

Succinctus == Francis of Ascoli, c. 1344.

Universalis == Alanus of Lille, 1202; Gilbert, Bishop of London, 1134.

Venerabilis et Christianissimus == Jean Gerson, 1429.

Venerandus == Geoffroy de Fontibus, O. F. M., 1240.

Vitœ Arbor == Johannes Wallensis, O. F. M., 1300.

Doctors in Law: ==

Aristotelis anima == Johannes Dondus, 1380.

Doctor a doctoribus == Antonius Franciscus, 1528.

Fons canonum == Johannes Andrea, 1348.

Fons juris utriusque == Henry of Susa (Ostia), 1267-81.

Lucerna juris == Baldus de Ubaldis, 1400.

Lucerna juris pontificii == Nicholas Tedeschi, O.S.B., 1445.

Lumen juris == Clement IV, 1268.

Lumen legum == Irnerius, 13th cent.

Memoriosissimus == Ludovicus Pontanus, 1439.

Monarcha juris == Bartholomew of Saliceto, 1412.

Os aureum == Bulgarus, 1166.

Pacificus (Proficuus) == Nicolas Bonet, O. F. M., 1360.

Pater Decretalium == Gregory IX, 1241.

Pater et organum veritatis == Innocent IV, 1254.

Pater juris == Innocent III, 1216.

Pater peritorum == Pierre de Belleperche, 1307.

Planus ac perspicuus == Walter Burleigh, 1337.

Princeps subtilitatum == Francesco d'Accolti, 1486.

Speculator == William Durandus, 1296.

Speculum juris == Bartholus of Sassoferrato, 1359.

Subtilis == Benedict Raymond, 1440; Filippo Corneo, 1462.

Verus == Thomas Doctius, Siena, 1441.

E.A. PACE

Surnames of Famous Doctors

It was customary in the Middle Ages to designate the more celebrated among the doctors by certain epithets or surnames which were supposed to express their characteristic excellence or dignity. This was especially the case with the doctors in law and theology. The following list exhibits the principal surnames with the dates of death.

DOCTORS IN THEOLOGY

Abstractionum -- Francis Mayron, O.F.M., 1325 or 1327.
Acutissimus -- Sixtus IV, 1484.
Acutus -- Gabriel Vasquez, S.J., 1604.
Amoenus -- Robert Conton, O.F.M., 1340.
Angelicus -- St. Thomas Aquinas, O.P., 1274.
Arca testamenti -- St. Anthony of Padua, 1231.
Authenticus -- Gregory of Rimini, O.S.A., 1358.
Averroista et philosophiae parens -- Urbanus, O.S.M., 1403.
Beatus et fundatissimus -- Ægidius of Colonna, O.S.A., 1316.
Bonus -- Walter Brinkley, O.F.M., 1310.
Christianus -- Nicholas of Cusa, 1464.
Clarus -- Louis of Montesinos, 1621.
Clarus ac subtilis -- Denis of Cîteaux, 15th cent.
Collectivus -- Landolfo Caracciolo, O.F.M., 1351.
Columna doctorum -- William of Champeaux, O.S.B., 1121.
Contradictionum -- Johann Wessel, 1489.
Divinus Ecstaticus -- John Ruysbroeck, Can. Reg., 1381.
Doctor doctorum Scholasticus -- Anselm of Laon, 1117.
Dulcifluus -- Antonius Andreas, O.F.M., 1320.
Ecstaticus -- Denys the Carthusian, 1471.
Eminens -- St. John of Matha, O.Trin., 1213.
Emporium theologiae -- Laurent Gervais, O.P., 1483 .
Exellentissimus -- Antonio Corsetti, 1503.
Eximius -- Francisco Suarez, S.J., 1617.
Facundus -- Petrus Aureoli, O.F.M., 1322.
Famosissimus -- Petrus Alberti, O.S.B., 1426.
Famosus -- Bertrand de la Tour, O.F.M., 1334.
Fertilis -- Francis of Candia, O.F.M., 15th cent.
Flos mundi -- Maurice O'Fiehely, O.F.M. Abp of Tuam, 1513.
Fundamentalis -- Joannes Faber of Bordeaux, 1350.
Fundaiissimus -- see Beatus.
Fundatus -- William Ware, O.F.M., 1270.
Illibatus -- Alexander Alamannicus, O.F.M., 15th cent.
Illuminatus -- Francis Mayron, O.F.M., 1325-27; Raymond Lully, O.F.M., 1315.
Illuminatus et sublimis -- Joannes Tauler, O.P., 1361.
Illustratus -- Franciscus Picenus, O.F.M., 14th cent.
Illustris -- Adam of Marisco, O.F.M., 1308.
Inclytus -- William Mackelfield, O.P., 1300.
Ingeniosissimus -- Andrew of Newcastle, O.F.M., 1300.
Inter Aristotelicos Aristotelicissimus -- Haymo of Faversham, O.F.M., 1244.
Invincibilis -- Petrus Thomas, O.F.M., 14th cent.
Irrefragibilis -- Alexander of Hales, O.F.M., 1245.
Magister Sententiarum -- Peter Lombard, 1164.
Magnus -- Albertus Magnus, O.P., 1280; Gilbert of Citeaux, O.Cist, 1280.
Marianus -- St. Anselm of Canterbury, O.S.B., 1109.
Mellifluus -- Bernard, O.Cist, 1153.
Mirabilis -- Antonio Perez, S.J., 1649; Roger Bacon, O.F.M., 1294.
Moralis -- Gerard Eudo, O.F.M., 1349.
Notabilis -- Pierre de l'Ile, O.F.M., 14th cent.
Ordinatissimus -- Johannes de Bassolis, O.F.M., c. 1347.
Ornatissimus et sufficiens -- Petrus de Aquila, O.F.M., 1344.
Parisiensis -- Guy de Perpignan, O.Carm, 1342.
Planus et utilis -- Nicolas de Lyre, O.F.M., 1340.
Praeclarus -- Peter of Kaiserslautern, O.Praem, 1330.
Praestantissimus -- Thomas Netter (of Walden), O.Carm, 1431.
Profundissimus -- Paul of Venice, O.S.A., 1428; Gabriel Biel, Can. Reg., 1495; Juan Alfonso Curiel, O.S.B., 1609.
Profundus -- Thomas Bradwardine, 1349.
Refulgidus -- Alexander V, 1410.
Resolutissimus -- Durandus of Saint-Pourcain, O.P., 1334.
Resolutus -- John Bacon, O.Carm., 1346.
Scholasticus -- Peter Abelard, 1142; Gilbert de la Porree, 1154; Peter Lombard, 1164; Peter of Poitiers, 1205; Hugh of Newcastle, O.F.M., 1322.
Seraphicus -- St. Bonaventure, O.F.M., 1274.
Singularis et invincibilis -- William of Occam, O.F.M., 1347 or 1359.
Solemnis -- Henry of Ghent, 1293.
Solidus Copiosus -- Richard of Middleton, O.F.M., 1300.
Speculativus -- James of Viterbo, O.S.A., 1307.
Sublimis -- Francis de Bachone, O.Carm., 1372; Jean Courte-Cuisse, 1425.
Subtilis -- Duns Scotus, O.F.M., 1308.
Subtilissimus -- Peter of Mantua, 14th cent.
Succinctus -- Francis of Ascoli, c. 1344.
Universalis -- Alanus of Lille, 1202; Gilbert, Bishop. of London, 1134.
Venerabilis et Christianissimus -- Jean Gerson, 1429.
Venerandus -- Geoffroy de Fontibus, O.F.M., 1240.
Vitae Arbor -- Johannes Wallensis, O.F.M., 1300

DOCTORS IN LAW

Aristotelis Anima -- Johannes Dondus, 1380.
Doctor a Doctoribus -- Antonius Franciscus, 1528.
Fons Canonum -- Johannes Andrea, 1348.
Fons Juris Utriusque -- Henry of Susa (Ostia), 1267-81.
Lucerna Juris -- Baldus de Ubaldis, 1400.
Lucerna Juris Pontificii -- Nicholas Tedeschi, O.S.B., 1445.
Lumen Juris -- Clement IV, 1268.
Lumen Legum -- Irnerius, 13th cent.
Memoriosissimus -- Ludovicus Pontanus, 1439.
Monarcha Juris -- Bartholomew of Saliceto, 1412.
Os Aureum -- Bulgarus, 1166.
Pacificus (Proficuus) -- Nicolas Bonet, O.F.M., 1360.
Pater Decretalium -- Gregory IX, 1241.
Pater et Organum Veritatis -- Innocent IV, 1254.
Pater Juris -- Innocent III, 1216.
Pater Peritorum -- Pierre de Belleperche, 1307.
Planus ac Perspicuus -- Walter Burleigh, 1337.
Princeps Subtilitatum -- Francesco d'Accolti, 1486.
Speculator -- William Durandus, 1296.
Speculum Juris -- Bartholus of Sassoferrato, 1359.
Subtilis -- Benedict Raymond, 1440; Filippo Corneo, 1462.
Verus -- Thomas Doctius, Siena, 1441

E.A. PACE

Doctors of the Church

(Lat. Doctores Ecclesiae) -- Certain ecclesiastical writers have received this title on account of the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine. In the Western church four eminent Fathers of the Church attained this honour in the early Middle Ages: St. Gregory the Great, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome. The "four Doctors" became a commonplace among the Scholastics, and a decree of Boniface VIII (1298) ordering their feasts to be kept as doubles in the whole Church is contained in his sixth book of Decretals (cap. "Gloriosus", de relique. et vener. sanctorum, in Sexto, III, 22).

In the Eastern Church three Doctors were pre-eminent: St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. The feasts of these three saints were made obligatory throughout the Eastern Empire by Leo VI, the Wise, the deposer of Photius. A common feast was later instituted in their honour on 30 January, called "the feast of the three Hierarchs". In the Menaea for that day it is related that the three Doctors appeared in a dream to John, Bishop of Euchaitae, and commanded him to institute a festival in their honour, in order to put a stop to the rivalries of their votaries and panegyrists. This was under Alexius Comnenus (1081-1118; see "Acta SS.", 14 June, under St. Basil, c. xxxviii). But sermons for the feast are attributed in manuscripts to Cosmas Vestitor, who flourished in the tenth century. The three are as common in Eastern art as the four are in Western. Durandus (i, 3) remarks that Doctors should be represented with books in their hands. In the West analogy led to the veneration of four Eastern Doctors, St. Athanasius being very properly added to the three hierarchs.

To these great names others have subsequently been added. The requisite conditions are enumerated as three: eminens doctrina, insignis vitae sanctitas, Ecclesiae declaratio (i.e. eminent learning, a high degree of sanctity, and proclamation by the Church). Benedict XIV explains the third as a declaration by the supreme pontiff or by a general council. But though general councils have acclaimed the writings of certain Doctors, no council has actually conferred the title of Doctor of the Church. In practice the procedure consists in extending to the universal church the use of the Office and Mass of a saint in which the title of doctor is applied to him. The decree is issued by the Congregation of Sacred Rites and approved by the pope, after a careful examination, if necessary, of the saint's writings. It is not in any way an ex cathedra decision, nor does it even amount to a declaration that no error is to be found in the teaching of the Doctor. It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are not wholly immune from error. No martyr has ever been included in the list, since the Office and the Mass are for Confessors. Hence, as Benedict XIV points out, St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, and St. Cyprian are not called Doctors of the Church.

The proper Mass of Doctors has the Introit "In medio", borrowed from that of the Theologus par excellence, St. John the Evangelist, together with special prayers and Gospel. The Credo is said. The principal peculiarity of the Office is the antiphon to the Magnificat at both Vespers, "O DOCTOR OPTIME", and it is rather by this antiphon than by the special mass that a saint is perceived to be a doctor (S.R.C., 7 Sept., 1754). In fact, St. John Damascene has a Mass of his own, while Athanasius, Basil, Leo, and Cyril of Jerusalem have not the Gospel of Doctors, and several have not the collect.

The feasts of the four Latin Doctors were not added to until the sixteenth century, when St. Thomas Aquinas was declared a Doctor by the Dominican St. Pius V in his new edition of the Breviary (1568), in which the feasts of the four Greek Doctors were also raised to the rank of doubles. The Franciscan Sixtus V (1588) added St. Bonaventure.

St. Anselm was added by Clement XI (1720), St. Isidore by Innocent XIII (1722), St. Peter Chrysologus by Benedict XIII (1729), St. Leo I (a well-deserved but belated honour) by Benedict XIV (1754), St. Peter Damian by Leo XII (1828), and St. Bernard by Pius VIII (1830). Pius IX gave the honour to St. Hilary (1851) and to two more modern saints, St. Alphonsus Liguori (1871) and St. Francis de Sales (1877). Leo XIII promoted (1883) the Easterns, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. John Damascene, and the Venerable Bede (1899). [Editor's note: Benedict XV added St. Ephraem (1920). Pius XI promoted St. Peter Canisius (1925), St. John of the Cross (1926), St. Robert Bellarmine (1931), and St. Albertus Magnus (1931), Pius XII added St. Anthony of Padua (1946). John XXIII named St. Lawrence of Brindisi (1959), and in 1970 Paul VI added St. Teresa of Avila and St. Catherine of Siena. John Paul II added St. Thérèse of Lisieux in 1997.]

Leo XIII, when, in 1882, he introduced the simplification of double feasts, made an exception for Doctors, whose feasts are always to be transferred.

There are therefore now [1997] thirty-three Doctors of the Church, of whom eight are Eastern and twenty-four Western. They include two Carmelites, two Jesuits, three Dominicans, three Franciscans, a Redemptorist, and five Benedictines. For some of these the Office had previously been granted to certain places or orders--St. Peter Damian to the Camaldolese, St. Isidore to Spain, St. Bede to England and to all Benedictines. St. Leander of Seville and St. Fulgentius are kept as Doctors in Spain, and the former by Benedictines also, as he was in earlier times claimed as a monk. St. Ildephonsus has the Introit "In medio" in the same order (for the same reason) and in Spain without the rank of Doctor.

POHLE in Kirchliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1907). II, 384; FESSLER-JUNGMANN, Instit. Patrologiae (Innsbruck, 1890); BARDENHEWER, Patrology, tr. SHAHAN (Freiburg im Br., St. Louis, 1908), 2-3. On the early Latin Doctors see WEYMAN in Hist. Jahrbuch (1894), XV, 96; and in Rev. d'hist. et de litt. religieuses (1898) III, 562; for the Greek Doctors see NILLES in Zeitschrift f. kath. Theologie (1894), XVIII, 742. See also BOUVY, Les Peres de l'Eglise in Rev. Augustinienne (1904) 461-86, and PESCH Praelect. Dogmat. (Freiburg, 1903), 346 sqq.

JOHN CHAPMAN

Christian Doctrine

Taken in the sense of "the act of teaching" and "the knowledge imparted by teaching", this term is synonymous with CATECHESIS and CATECHISM. Didaskalia, didache, in the Vulgate, doctrina, are often used in the New Testament, especially in the Pastoral Epistles. As we might expect, the Apostle insists upon "doctrine" as one of the most important duties of a bishop (I Tim., iv, 13, 16; v, 17; II Tim., iv, 2, etc.).

The word katechesis means instruction by word of mouth, especially by questioning and answering. Though it may apply to any subject-matter, it is commonly used for instruction in the elements of religion, especially preparation for initiation into Christianity. The word and others of the same origin occur in St. Luke's Gospel: "That thou mayest know the verity of those things in which thou hast been instructed" (katechethes, in quibus eruditus es -- i, 4). In the Acts, xviii, 25, Apollo is described as "instructed [katechemenos, edoctus] in the way of the Lord". St. Paul uses the word twice: "I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct [katecheso, instruam] others also" (I Cor., xiv, 19); and "Let him that is instructed [ho katechoumenos, is qui catechizatur] in the word, communicate to him that instructeth [to katechounti, ei qui catechizat] him, in all good things" (Gal., vi, 6). Hence the word, with its technical meaning of oral religious instruction, passed into ecclesiastical use, and is applied both to the act of instructing and the subject-matter of the instruction. The word catechism was also formerly used for the act of instructing ("To say ay, and no, to these particulars, is more than to answer in a catechism" -- As You Like It, act iii, sc. 2), as catéchisme is still used in French; but it is now more properly applied to the little printed book in which the questions and answers are contained. The subject will be treated in this article under the three heads:

I. HISTORY OF CATECHETICS;
II. PRACTICAL CATECHETICS,
III. MODERN CATECHISMS.

I. HISTORY OF CATECHETICS

(1) Oral instruction by means of questions and answers has occupied a prominent place in the scholastic methods of the moral and religious teachers of all countries and of all ages. The Socratic dialogues will occur to every one as brilliant examples. But many centuries before Socrates' day this method was practised among the Hebrews (Exod., xii, 26; Deut., vi, 7, 20, etc.). They had three forms of catechizing: domestic, conducted by the head of the family for the benefit of his children and servants; scholastic, by teachers in schools; and ecclesiastical by priests and Levites in the Temple and the synagogues. Proselytes were carefully instructed before being admitted to become members of the Jewish faith. The regular instruction of children began when they were twelve years old. Thus we read of Christ "in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers" (Luke, ii, 46, 47). During His public life He frequently made use of the catechetical method to impart instruction: "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?" "Whom do men say that the son of man is? . . . Whom do you say that I am?" etc. In His final charge to His Apostles He said: " Teach ye [matheteusate, "make disciples, or scholars"] all nations; . . . . Teaching [didaskontes, "instructing"] them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt., xxviii, 19). And after this instruction they were to initiate them into the Church, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (ibid.).

(2) In obedience to Christ's command, St. Peter, "standing up with the eleven", declared to the Jews on Pentecost day, and proved to them from the Scriptures that Jesus, whom they had crucified, was "Lord and Christ". When they had been convinced of this truth, and had compunction in their heart for their crime, they asked, "What shall we do?" And Peter answered, "Do penance, and be baptized . . . . in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins." "And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them" (Acts, ii). We have here an abridgment of the first catechetical instruction given by the Apostles. It is both doctrinal and moral -- the hearers are to believe and to repent. This twofold element is also contained in St. Peter's second discourse after healing the lame man in the Temple (Acts, iii). St. Stephen goes further, and brings out that belief in Jesus as the Christ (Messias) meant the ending of the Old Covenant and the coming in of a New (Acts, vi, vii). St. Philip the Deacon preached "of the kingdom of God, in the name of Jesus Christ"; and the Samaritans "were baptized, both men and women" (Acts, viii). Furthermore, St. Peter and St. John came from Jerusalem and "prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost"; and doubtless declared to them the doctrine of that Holy Spirit (ibid.). The same deacon's discourse to the eunuch deals with the proof from Scripture, and notably Isaias (liii, 7), that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God", and the necessity of baptism. No mention is made of penance or repentance, as the eunuch was a just man anxious to do God's will. So, too, Cornelius, "a religious man, and fearing God with all his house, giving much alms to the people, and always praying to God", did not need much moral instruction; accordingly St. Peter speaks to him of Jesus Christ who "is lord of all . . . Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things that he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed, hanging him upon a tree. Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest . . . even to us who did eat and drink with him after he arose again from the dead; and he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the dead. To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him" (Acts, x). In this discourse we have the chief articles of the Creed: the Trinity (God, Jesus Christ "Lord of all things", the Holy Ghost), the Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection of Our Lord; His coming to judge the living and the dead, and the remission of sins. These are also the subjects of St. Paul's discourses, though, of course, in addressing the pagans, whether peasants at Lystra or philosophers at Athens, he deals with the fundamental truths of the existence and attributes of God (Acts, xiii, xiv, xvii). As he himself summed up the matter, he taught "publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and Gentiles penance towards God, and faith in [eis] our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts, xx). We find also that though Apollo was "instructed [katechemenos] in the way of the Lord", Priscilla and Aquila "expounded to him the way Of the Lord more diligently" (akribesteron -- Acts, xviii. -- See APOSTLES' CREED).

(3) The materials for describing the catechetical teaching of the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles are scanty. The books of the New Testament were available, and all that would be needed would be to supplement these. Thus, in the Didache we find little but moral instruction; but it is clear that those to whom it is addressed must have already received some knowledge of what they were to believe. Later on we find more explicit dogmatic teaching, for instance, in St. Justin's Apologies and in the writings of Clement of Alexandria. Still, even this is not much more advanced than what we have seen above as taught by St. Peter, except that Justin dwells on the Creation and proves the Divinity of Christ, the Logos and only-begotten Son of the Father.

(4) In the ages of persecution it became necessary to exercise great caution in admitting persons to membership in the Church. The danger of falling away, or even of betrayal, must be guarded against by a careful doctrinal and moral training. Hence the institution of the catechumenate and the Discipline of the Secret. The work of the Apologists had been to remove prejudices against Christianity, and to set forth its doctrines and practices in such a way as to appeal to the fair-minded pagan. If anyone was moved to embrace the true religion, he was not at once admitted, as in the days of the Apostles. At first he was treated as an inquirer, and only the fundamental doctrines were communicated to him. As soon as he had given proof of his knowledge and fitness he was admitted to the catechumenate proper, and was further instructed. After some years spent in this stage he was promoted to the ranks of the Competentes, i. e. those ready for baptism. As might be expected, he was now instructed more especially in the rites for this purpose. Even when he had been initiated, his instruction was not yet at an end. During the week after Easter, while the grace of first fervour was still upon him, the various rites and mysteries in which he had just participated were more fully explained to him.

In considering the catechetical writings of the Fathers we must bear in mind the distinction of these different grades. When addressing a mere inquirer they would naturally be more guarded and less explicit than if they had to do with one who had passed through the catechumenate. Sometimes, indeed, the language was so chosen that it conveyed only half the truth to the catechumen, while the initiated could understand the whole. The distinction between the elementary and advanced instruction is noted by St. Paul: "As unto little ones in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet" (I Cor., iii, 2). For our present purpose it will be best to take as typical examples of catechesis in the patristic times the works of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) and St. Augustine (354-430), merely noting by the way the work done by St. Ambrose (the instructor of St. Augustine) and St. Gregory of Nyssa ("The Catechetical Oration", ed. J. II. Strawley, 1903). We have from St. Cyril twenty-four catechetical discourses, forming together a complete course of moral and doctrinal instruction. In the first of these, called the "Procatechesis", he sets forth the greatness and efficacy of the grace of initiation into the Church. The "Catecheses" proper (numbered i to xviii) are divided into two groups: i-v, repeating the leading ideas of the "Procatechesis", and treating of sin and repentance, baptism, the principal doctrines of the Christian religion, and the nature and origin of faith; vi-xviii, setting forth, article by article, the baptisimal Creed of the Church of Jerusalem. The "Procatechesis" and the eighteen discourses were intended for the competentes during Lent, in immediate preparation for reception into the Church. The remaining discourses (19-24), called the "Catecheses Mystagogic", were delivered during Easter week to those who had been baptized at Easter; and these, though much shorter than the others, treat clearly and openly of baptism, confirmation, and the Holy Eucharist, the veil of secrecy being now removed. This is not the place to point out how completely in accord with Catholic teaching are the doctrines of St. Cyril (see CYRIL OF JERUSALEM; TRANSUBSTANTIATION), and what valuable information he gives of the details of the Liturgy in his day. In studying these "Catecheses" we should bear in mind that they were intended for grown-up persons; hence they are not couched in the simple language which we have to use in our instructions to our children. They resemble, rather, the instruction given to converts, for which purpose they are still of great use. The same remark applies to all the catechetical writings of the Fathers.

St. Augustine's treatise "De Catechizandis Rudibus" deals with both the theory and the practice of catechizing. It is divided into twenty-seven chapters: 1-14 theory, 15-27 practice. This short work, written about the year 400, shows that the great Doctor did not disdain to devote most careful attention to the work of instructing those who wished to learn the rudiments of the Faith. It could be written only by one who had much experience of the difficulties and tediousness of the task, and who had also pondered deeply on the best method of dealing with the different classes of converts. The Deogratias, who had consulted Augustine on the subject, complained (as so many of us still do) of the weariness of going over the same old ground, and of his inability to put any fresh life into his instructions. St. Augustine begins by words of encouragement, pointing out that we must judge of our discourses not by their effect upon ourselves, but by their effect upon our healers. The story may be familiar enough to us, who go on repeating it over and over again, but it is not so to those who are listening to it for the first time. Bearing this in mind, the catechist should put himself in the position of the hearer, and speak as though he were telling something new. Hilaritas, a bright and cheerful manner, must be one of the chief qualifications of an instructor; "God loveth a cheerful giver" applies to the giving of the word as well as to the giving of wealth. He should so speak that the hearer hearing should believe, believing should hope, and hoping should love (Quidquid narras ita narra, ut ille cui loqueris audiendo credat, credendo speret, sperando amet -- iv, 11). But the foundation of all is the fear of God, "for if seldom, or rather never, happens that anyone wishes to become a Christian without being moved thereto by some fear of God". If he comes from some worldly motive he may be only pretending, though indeed a mere pretender may sometimes be turned into a genuine convert by our efforts. Hence, continues the holy Doctor, it is of great importance to ascertain the state of mind and the motives of those who come to us. If we are satisfied that they have received a Divine call, we have a good opening for instruction on the care of God for us. We should go briefly through the story of God's dealings with men, from the time when He made all things even to our own days; showing especially that the Old Testament was a preparation for the New, and the New a fulfilment of the Old (in veteri testamento est occultatio novi, in novo testamento est manifestatio veteris). This is a theme developed at greater length in the "De Civitate Dei". After we have finished our story we should go on to excite hope in the resurrection of the body -- a doctrine as much ridiculed in St. Augustine's day as it was in St. Paul's day, and as it is in ours. Then should come the account to be rendered at the last judgment, and the reward of the just, and the punishment of the wicked. The convert should be put on his guard against the dangers and difficulties in trying to lead a good life, especially those arising from scandals within as well as without the Church. Finally, he should be reminded that the grace of his conversion is not due either to his merits or to ours, but to the goodness of God. So far the saint has been speaking of persons of little or no education. In chap. viii he goes on to deal with those who are well educated, and are already acquainted with the Scriptures and other Christian writings. Such persons require briefer instruction, and this should be imparted in such a way as to let them see that we are aware of their knowledge of the Faith. Doubtless St. Augustine had in mind his own case, when he presented himself to be received into the Church by St. Ambrose. We note, too, the wisdom of this piece of advice, especially when we have to deal with Anglican converts. But though less instruction is needed in such cases, continues the holy Doctor, we may rightly inquire into the causes which have induced these persons to wish to become Christians; and in particular as to the books which have influenced them. If these are the Scriptures or other Catholic books we should praise and recommend them; but if these are heretical we should point out wherein they have distorted the true faith. Throughout our instruction we should speak with modesty, but also with authority, that he who hears us may have no scope for presumption but rather for humility. Humility is also the principal virtue to be urged upon that intermediate class of converts who have received some education but not of the higher sort. These are disposed to scoff at Christian writings, and even at the Scriptures for their want of correctness of language. They should be made to see that it is the matter rather than the language which is of importance; it is more profitable to listen to a true discourse than to one which is eloquent. The whole of this chapter should be taken to heart by many who join the Church nowadays. After dealing with these different classes of inquirers, the saint devotes no less than five lengthy chapters (x to xiv) to the causes of weariness (the opposite of hilaritas) and the remedies for it. This portion is perhaps the most valuable of the whole treatise, at least from a practical point of view. Only the merest outline of St. Augustine's advice as to the remedies can be given here. We must bring ourselves down to the level of the lowest of our hearers, even as Christ humbled Himself and took upon Himself "the form of a servant". We must vary the subjects, and we must increase in earnestness of manner so as to move even the most sluggish. If it seems to us that the fault is ours, we should reflect, as already pointed out, that the instruction, though not up to our ideal, may be exactly suited to our hearer and entirely fresh and new to him; in any case the experience may be useful as a trial to our humility. Other occupations may be pleasanter, but we cannot say that they are certainly more profitable; for duty should come first, and we should submit to God's will and not try to make Him submit to ours. After laying down these precepts, St. Augustine goes on to give a short catechetical instruction as an example of what he has been inculcating. It is supposed to be addressed to an ordinary type of inquirer, neither grossly ignorant nor highly educated (xvi to xxv), and might well be used at the present day. What specially strikes one in reading it is the admirable way in which the saint brings out the prophetical and typical character of the Old-Testament narrative, and insinuates gradually all the articles of the Creed without seeming to reveal them. The sketch of Christ's life and passion, and the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments are also noteworthy. The discourse ends with an earnest exhortation to perseverance. This short work has exercised the greatest influence on catechetics. In all ages of the Church it has been adopted as a textbook.

(5) When all fear of persecution had passed away, and the empire had become almost entirely Christian, the necessity for a prolonged period of trial and instruction no longer existed. About the same time the fuller teaching on the subject of original sin, occasioned by the Pelagian heresy, gradually led to the administration of baptism to infants. In such cases instruction was, of course, impossible, though traces of it are still to be seen in the rite of infant baptism, where the godparents are put through a sort of catechesis in the name of the child. As the child grew, it was taught its religion both at home and at the services in church. This instruction was necessarily more simple than that formerly given to grown-up catechumens, and gradually came to be what we now understand by catechetical instruction. Meantime, however, the barbarian invaders were being brought into the Church, and in their case the instruction had to be of an elementary character. The missionaries had to go back to the methods of the Apostles and content themselves with exacting a renunciation of idolatry and a profession of belief in the great truths of Christianity. Such was the practice of St. Patrick in Ireland, St. Remigius among the Franks, St. Augustine in England, St. Boniface in Germany. We should bear in mind that in those ages religious instruction did not cease with baptism. Set sermons were rarer than in our time; the priest spoke rather as a catechist than as a preacher. We may take the practice among the Anglo-Saxons as typical of what was done in other countries. "Among the duties incumbent on the parish priest the first was to instruct his flock in the doctrines and duties of Christianity, and to extirpate from among them the lurking remains of paganism . . . He was ordered to explain to his parishioners the ten commandments; to take care that all could repeat and understand the Lord's Prayer and the Creed; to expound in English on Sundays the portion of Scripture proper to the Mass of the day, and to preach, or, if he were unable to preach, to read at least from a book some lesson of instruction" (Lingard, "Anglo-Saxon Church", c. iv). The laws enacting these duties will be found in Thorpe, "Ecclesiastical Institutes", i, 378; ii, 33, 34, 84, 191.

(6) It is the custom with non-Catholic writers to assert that during the Middle Ages, "the Ages of Faith", religious instruction was entirely neglected, and that the Protestant Reformers were the first to restore the practice of the Early Church. In the "Dict. de théol. cath.", s.v. "Catéchisme", and in Bareille, "Le Catéchisme Romain", Introd., pp. 36 sqq., will be found long lists of authorities showing how false are these assertions. We must here content ourselves with stating what was done in England. Abbot Gasquet has thoroughly gone into the subject, and declares that "in pre-Reformation days the people were well instructed in their faith by priests who faithfully discharged their plain duty In their regard" (Old English Bible and other Essays, p. 186). In proof of this he quotes the constitutions of John Peckham, Archbishop of Canterbury (1281), in which it is enjoined that every priest shall explain to his people in English, and without any elaborate subtleties (vulgariter absque cujuslibet subtilitatis texturâ fantastic ), four times a year, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, the two precepts of the Gospel (viz. love of God and man), the seven deadly sins, the seven chief virtues (theological and cardinal), and the seven sacraments. In these constitutions is contained a brief instruction on all these heads, "lest anyone should excuse himself on the ground of ignorance of these things which all the ministers of the Church are bound to know". This legislation, after all, was nothing but an insisting on a practice dating from Saxon days, as we have already seen. Moreover, it is constantly referred to in subsequent synods and in countless catechetical writings. One of Peckham's predecessors, St. Edmund Rich (1234-1240), was not only a man of great learning, but also a zealous teacher of Christian doctrine among the people. He wrote familiar instructions on prayer, the seven deadly sins, the Commandments, and the sacraments. Cardinal Thoresby, Archbishop of York, published in 1357 a catechism in Latin and English, the "Lay Folks Catechism", for the purpose of carrying out Peckham's Constitutions, and it is based on Peckham's instruction. The two, with the English translation in rude verse, have been reprinted by the Early English Text Society, No. 118. In the episcopal Registers and Visitations we read how the people were asked whether their pastor fulfilled his duties, and they constantly answer that they are taught bene et optime. Chaucer's Poor Parson may be taken as a type:

His tale is practically a treatise on the Sacrament of Penance. As regards catechetical manuals we need only mention the "Pars Oculi Sacerdotis" (about the middle of the fourteenth century) which was very popular; "Pupilla Oculi", by John de Burgo (1385); "Speculum Christiani", by John Wotton, containing simple English rhymes as well as the Latin text. "One of the earliest books ever issued from an English press by Caxton . . . . was a set of four lengthy discourses, published, as they expressly declare, to enable priests to fulfil the obligation imposed on them by the Constitutions of Peckham" (Gasquet, op. cit., p. 191). The part which pictures, statues, reliefs, pageants, and especially miracle plays took in the religious instruction of the people must not be forgotten. All of these give proof of an extensive knowledge of sacred history and an astonishing skill in conveying doctrinal and moral lessons. If is enough to refer to Ruskin's "Bible of Amiens", and to the Townley, Chester, and Coventry miracle plays. (Cf. Bareille, op. cit., pp. 42 sqq.)

(7) The invention of printing and the revival of learning naturally had great influence on catechetical instruction. The first great name to be mentioned, though indeed it belongs to a slightly earlier period, is that of John Gerson (1363-1429). He realized that the much-needed reform of the Church should begin by the instruction of the young; and though he was chancellor of the University of Paris he devoted himself to this work. He composed a sort of little catechism entitled "The A B C of Simple Folk". To enable the clergy to catechize he also composed the "Opus Tripartitum de Pr eceptis Decalogi, de Confessione, et de Arte bene Moriendi", in which he briefly explained the Creed, the Commandments of God, the sins to be mentioned in confession, and the art of dying well. This was printed many times and was translated into French. It was the forerunner of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. In the year 1470, before Luther was born, a German catechism, "Christenspiegel" (the Christian's Mirror), written by Dederich, was printed, and at once became very popular. Two other catechisms, "The Soul's Guide" and "The Consolation of the Soul", were printed a little later and issued in many editions. Tn Janssen's great "History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages" will be found a complete refutation of the popular notion that the Protestant Reformers, and especially Luther, were the first to revive catechetical instruction and to print catechisms. It is, however, proper to acknowledge their activity in this matter, and to note that this activity stirred up the zeal of the Catholics to counteract their influence. Luther's famous "Enchiridion", which was really the third edition of his smaller catechism, was published in 1529, and speedily ran through a number of editions; it is still used in Germany and in other Protestant countries. In 1536 Calvin composed a catechism in French: "Le formulaire d'instruire les enfans en la chrestienté, fait en manière de dialogue oú le ministre interroge et l'enfant répond". He candidly admits that it was always the custom in the Church to instruct children in this way. Of course he takes care to introduce the chief points of his heresy: the certainty of salvation, the impossibility of losing justice (righteousness), and the justification of children independently of baptism. It is noteworthy that as regards the Eucharist he teaches that we receive not merely a sign, but Jesus Christ Himself, "really and effectually by a true and substantial union". In England the first Book of Common Prayer (1549) contained a catechism with a brief explanation of the Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. The explanation of the sacraments was not added until the year 1604. If this catechism be compared with that of Cardinal Thoresby, mentioned above, it will be seen that the instruction given to Protestant children in the middle of the sixteenth century was far inferior to that given in pre-Reformation days. In 1647 the Westminster Assembly of Divines drew up the Presbyterian "Larger" and "Smaller" Catechisms.

On the Catholic side Blessed Peter Canisius published three catechisms, or rather one catechism in three forms: major (1555), minor (1558), and minimus (1556). Taking as his foundation Ecclus., i, 33, he divides his treatment into two great parts: wisdom and justice. In the first he deals with Faith (the Creed), Hope (the Lord's Prayer and the Hail Mary), Charity (the Commandments). In the second he deals with avoiding evil (sin and the remission of sin) and doing good (prayer, fasting and almsdeeds, the cardinal virtues, the gifts and fruits of the Holy Ghost, the beatitudes, the evangelical counsels, and the Four Last Things). To obtain and to preserve both wisdom and justice the sacraments are necessary, and hence he places the treatment of the sacraments between the two parts. After the Council of Trent (1563) Canisius added a chapter on the Fall and Justification. The form of the three books is that of questions and answers, some of the latter being as long as four or five pages. In striking contrast to the Protestant catechisms, the tone throughout is calm, and there is an absence of controversial bitterness. The success of Canisius' catechisms was enormous. They were translated into every language in Europe, and were reprinted in many hundreds of editions, so that the name Canisius came to be synonymous with Catechism (Bareille, op. cit., p. 61).

The Catechism of the Council of Trent (Catechismus Romanus) is not a catechism in the ordinary sense of the word. It is rather a manual of instruction for the clergy (Catechismus ad Parochos) to enable them to catechize those entrusted to their spiritual care. The fathers of the council "deemed it of the utmost importance that a work should appear, sanctioned by the authority of the Holy Synod, from which perish priests and all others on whom the duty of imparting instruction devolves may be able to seek and derive certain precepts for the edification of the faithful; that as there is 'one Lord one Faith' so also there may be one common rule and prescribed form of delivering the faith, and instructing the Christian people unto all the duties of piety" (Pr f., viii). The composition of the work was entrusted to four distinguished theologians (two of them archbishops and one a bishop), under the supervision of three cardinals. St. Charles Borromeo was the presiding spirit. The original draft was turned into elegant Latin by Pogianus and Manutius, and this version was translated by command of the pope (St. Pius V) into Italian, French, German, and Polish. Brought out under such conditions (1566), the authority of this catechism is higher than that of any other, but is, of course, not on a level with that of the canons and decrees of a council, As to its value Cardinal Newman's estimate may be gathered from these words: "I rarely preach a sermon, but I go to this beautiful and complete Catechism to get both my matter and my doctrine" (Apologia, p. 425). (See ROMAN CATECHISM.)

Cardinal Bellarmine's Catechism was ordered by Clement VIII to be used in the Papal States, and was recommended for use throughout the world. It appeared in two forms: "Dottrina Cristiana Breve" (1597) and "Dichiarazione più Copiosa della Dottrina Cristiana" (1598). The first is for scholars, the second for teachers; in the first the teacher asks the questions and the scholar replies, whereas in the second this process is reversed. The first, which is meant to be learnt by heart, contains eleven chapters and ninety-five questions, and is arranged in the following order: the Calling of the Christian and the Sign of the Cross; the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Hail Mary; the Commandments of God, the Commandments of the Church, and the Counsels; the Sacraments, the Theological and Cardinal Virtues, the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, the Works Of Mercy, Sins, the Last Things, and the Rosary. It is an improvement on Canisius' catechisms, and hence it was recommended at the Vatican Council to serve as a model for the projected universal catechism.

The first catechism in English after the Reformation was "A Catechisme or Christian Doctrine necessarie for Children and Ignorante People, briefly compiled by Laurence Vaux, Bacheler of Divinitie"; 1st ed., 1567; reprinted 1574, 1583 (twice), 1599, 1605; 18mo. This has been reprinted for the Chetham Society, new series, vol. IV, Manchester, 1883. Next came a small volume, "A Briefe Instruction by way of Dialogue concerning the principall poyntes of Christian religion gathered out of the Holy Scriptures, Fathers and Councels. By the Reverend M. George Doulye, Priest. Imprinted at Louvaine by Laurence Kellam, anno 1604": "A Shorte Catechisme of Cardinal Bellarmine illustrated with Images." In Augusta, 1614: "A briefe Christian Doctrine to be lerned by heart"; "A Summe of Christian Doctrine composed in Latin by Father Petrus Canisius of the Society of Jesus with an Appendix of the Fall of Man and Justification. Translated into English [by Fr. Garnet?) at St. Omers for John Heigham. With permission of Superiors: 1622"; "A Catechisme of Christian Doctrine in fifteen Conferences. Paris: 1637", 2nd ed., 1659. The author was Thomas White, alias Blacklow, of Lisbon and Douai. The most important, however, was the book which came to be known as "The Doway Catechism", "An Abridgement of Christian Doctrine with proofs of Scripture for points controverted. Catechistically explained by way of question and answer", printed at Douai, 1st ed., 1649; again 1661, and so constantly. The last editions mentioned by Gillow are London, 1793, and Dublin, 1828; the author was Henry Turberville, a Douai priest. There was also a smaller edition, "An Abstract of the Douay Catechism. For the use of children and ignorant people. London, printed in the year 1688"; it was reprinted many times, and continued in use until the Douai students came to England. In 1625, the Franciscan Florence O'Conry published an Irish catechism at Louvain, entitled "Mirror of a Christian Life". This, like the catechisms of O'Hussey (Louvain, 1608) and Stapleton (Brussels, 1639), was written for the benefit of the Irish troops serving in the Netherlands. In the same century another member of the Franciscan order, Father Francis Molloy, a native of the County Meath, Ireland, and at the time professor of theology in St. Isidore's College, Rome, published a catechism in Irish under the title "Lucerna Fidelium" (Rome, Propaganda Press, 1676). We should also mention Andrew Donlevy's "The Catechism or Christian Doctrine by way of question and answer. Paris, 1742". This was in English and Irish on opposite pages. "The Poor Man's Catechism or the Christian Doctrine explained with short admomitions", 1st ed., 1752; it was edited by the Rev. George Bishop. The author's name does not appear, but a later work tells who he was: "The Poor Man's Controversy, By J. Mannock, O. S. B., the author of the Poor Man's Catechism, 1769." Dr. James Butler Archbishop of Cashel, published his catechism in 1775, and it was soon adopted by many Irish bishops for their dioceses. An account of it was given by Archbishop Walsh in the "Irish Eccl. Record", Jan., 1892. In 1737 Bishop Challoner published "The Catholic Christian instructed in the Sacraments, Sacrifice, Ceremonies, and Observances of the Church by way of question and answer. By R. C. London 1737." There is also "An Abridgement of Christian Doctrine with a Short Daily Exercise", "corrected by the late Bishop Challoner", 1783. Bishop Hay's admirable works: "The Sincere Christian instructed in the Faith of Christ from the Written Word" (1781); "The Devout Christian instructed in the Faith of Christ" (1783); and "The Pious Christian" are catechisms on a large scale in the form of question and answer.

During the eighteenth century catechetical instruction received a fresh impulse from Pope Benedict XIII, who issued (1725) three ordinances prescribing in detail the methods: division into small classes and special preparation for confession and Communion. Against the rationalistic tendencies in the pedagogical movement of the century, Clement XIII uttered a protest in 1761. Pius VI wrote (1787) to the Orientals, proposing for their use a catechism in Arabic prepared by the Propaganda. In Germany the "Pastoral Instruction" issued by Raymond Anton, Bishop of Eichst dt (1768; new ed., Freiburg, 1902) emphasized the need and indicated the method of instruction (Tit. XIV, Cap. V). Prominent among the writers on the subject were Franz Neumayr, S. J. in his "Rhetorica catechetica" (1766); M.I. Schmidt, "Katechisten", and J.I. von Felbiger, "Vorlesungen über die Kunst zu katechisieren" (Vienna, 1774). In France, during the same century, great activity was shown, especially by the bishops, in publishing catechisms. Each diocese had its own textbook, but though occasional attempts were made at uniformity, they were not successful. Several catechisms composed by individual writers other than the bishops were put on the Index (see Migne, "Catéchismes", Paris, 1842). The French original of "An Abridgment of the Quebec Catechism" (Quebec, 1817) appeared in Paris (1702) and Quebec (1782).

The pedagogical activity of the nineteenth century naturally exerted an influence upon religious instruction. German writers of the first rank were Overberg (d. 1826), Sailer (d. 1832), Gruber (d. 1835), and Hirscher (d. 1865), all of whom advocated the psychological method and the careful preparation of teachers. Deharbe's "Catechism" (1847) was translated between 1853 and 1860 into thirteen languages, and his "Erkl rungen des Katechismus" (1857-61) has passed through numerous editions. In France, Napoleon (1806) imposed upon all the churches of the empire uniformity in the matter of catechisms and, in spite of the opposition of Pius VII, published the "Imperial Catechism", containing a chapter on duties towards the emperor. This was replaced after the fall of the empire by a large number of diocesan catechisms which again led to various plans for securing uniformity. Dupanloup, one of the foremost writers on education, published his Catéchisme chrétien" in 1865. At the time of the Vatican Council (1869-1870) the question of having a single universal catechism was discussed. There was great diversity of opinion among the Fathers, and consequently the discussion led to no result (see Martin, "Les travaux du concile du Vatican", pp. 113-115). The arguments for and against the project will be examined when we come to speak of catechisms in the third part of this article. The most important event in the recent history of catechetics has been the publication of the Encyclical "Acerbo nimis" on the teaching of Christian doctrine (15 April, 1905). In this document Pius X attributes the present religious crisis to the widespread ignorance of Divine truth, and lays down strict regulations concerning the duty of catechizing (see below). For the purpose of discussing the best methods of carrying out these orders a number of catechetical congresses have been held: e. g., at Munich, 1905 and 1907; Vienna, 1905 and 1908; Salzburg, 1906; Lucerne, 1907; Paris, 1908, etc. At these gatherings scientific, yet practical, lectures were delivered, demonstrations were given of actual catechizing in school, and an interesting feature was the exhibition of the best literature and appliances. Two periodicals have likewise appeared: "Katechetische Blätter" (Munich) and "Christlich-pädagogische Blätter" (Vienna).

In the United States, the few priests who in the early days toiled in this vast field were so overburdened with work that they could not produce original textbooks for religious instruction; they caused to be re-printed, with slight alterations, books commonly used in Europe. Others were composed in the manner described by Dr. England, first Bishop of Charleston, who, in 1821, published a catechism which, he writes, "I had much labor in compiling from various others, and adding several parts which I considered necessary to be explicitly dwelt upon under the peculiar circumstances of my diocese." The first to edit a catechism, so far as is known, was the Jesuit Father Robert Molyneux, an Englishman by birth and a man of extensive learning, who, till 1809, laboured among the Catholics in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Copies of this work are not known to exist now, but, in letters to Bishop Carroll, Father Molyneux mentions two catechisms which he issued -- one in 1785, "a spelling primer for children with a Catholic catechism annexed". In 1788 a catechism was published in New York which in all likelihood was a reprint of "Butler's Catechism" mentioned above. Bishop Hay's "Abridgement of Christian Doctrine" (152 pp) appeared in Philadelphia in 1800; another edition (143 pp.) in 1803, and one with some alterations in the language in Baltimore in 1809 (108 pp.). Many editions were published of the catechism entitled "A Short Abridgement of Christian Doctrine, Newly Revised for the Use of the Catholic Church in the United States of America". The size of these small catechisms is from 36 to 48 pages. One edition, with title page torn, bears on the last page the record: "Bought September 14, 1794". The Philadelphia edition of 1796 is styled the thirteenth edition; that of Baltimore, 1798, the fourteenth. Whether all these editions were printed in America, or some of the earlier ones in Europe, cannot be ascertained.

This "Short Abridgement of Christian Doctrine", approved by Archbishop Carroll, was generally used throughout the United States until about 1821. In that year Bishop England published his catechism for his own diocese, and in 1825 appeared the "Catechism of the Diocese of Bardstown", recommended as a class-book by Bishop Flaget of Bardstown, Kentucky. The author of the latter catechism was Jean-Baptiste David, coadjutor of Bishop Flaget. It comprised the "First or Smail Catechism for Little Children" (13 pp.), and the "Second Catechism" (149 pp.). The English were criticized by Archbishop Mar chal and others. Still more defective and inexact in language was the catechism of Bishop Conwell of Philadelphia, and, at the request of the archbishop, the author suppressed the book. An old English catechism, the "Abridgement of Christian Doctrine", by Henry Turberville, first published at Douai in 1649, was reprinted in New York in 1833. Whereas this edition preserved the quaint old language of the original, another edition of the same book appeared in Philadelphia, as "revised by the Right Rev. James Doyle and prescribed by him for the united dioceses of Kildare and Leighlin" (Ireland). In the New England States the "Boston Catechism" was used for a long time, the "Short Abridgement of Christian Doctrine", newly revised and augmented and authorized by Bishop Fenwick of Boston. But the catechisms which were used most exclusively during several decades were Butler's "Larger Catechism" and "Abridged Catechism". In 1788 Samuel Campbell, New York, published "A Catechism for the Instruction of Children. The Seventh Edition with Additions, Revised and Corrected by the Author". This seems to be the first American edition of Butler's Catechism; for Dr. Troy, Bishop of Ossory, wrote, soon after Butler's Catechism had appeared: "It has been printed here under the title: 'A Catechism for the Instruction of Children', without any mention of Dr. Butler". Butler's Catechism became very popular in the United States, and the First Provincial Council of Canada (1851) prescribed it for the English-speaking Catholics of the Dominion. Some other American catechisms may be briefly mentioned: the so-called "Dubuque Catechism" by Father Hattenberger; the Small and the Larger Catechism of the Jesuit missionary, Father Weninger (1865); and the three graded catechisms of the Redemptorist Father Müller (1874). Far more extensively used than these was the English translation of Deharbe. From 1869 numerous editions of the small, medium, and large catechisms, with various modifications, were published in the United States. An entirely new and much improved edition was issued in New York in 1901.

Repeated efforts have been made in the United States towards an arrangement by which a uniform textbook of Christian Doctrine might be used by all Catholics. As early as 1829, the bishops assembled in the First Provincial Council of Baltimore decreed: "A catechism shall be written which is better adapted to the circumstances of this Province; it shall give the Christian Doctrine as explained in Cardinal Bellarmine's Catechism, and when approved by the Holy See, it shall be published for the common use of Catholics" (Decr. xxxiii). The clause recommending Bellarmine's Catechism as a model was added at the special request of the Congregation of Propaganda. It may be mentioned here that Bellarmine's "Small Catechism", Italian text with English translation, was published at Boston, in 1853. The wish of the bishops was not carried out, and the First and Second Plenary Councils of Baltimore (1852 and 1866) repeated the decree of 1829. In the Third Plenary Council (1884) many bishops were in favour of a "revised" edition of Butler's Catechism, but finally the matter was given into the hands of a committee of six bishops. At last, in 1885, was issued "A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, Prepared and Enjoined by Order of the Third Council of Baltimore". Although the council had desired a catechism "perfect in every respect" (Acta et Decr., p. 219), theologians and teachers criticized several points (Nilles, "Commentaria", II, 265, 188). Soon various editions came forth with additions of word-meanings, explanatory notes, some even with different arrangements, so that there is now a considerable diversity in the books that go by the name of Catechism of the Council of Baltimore. Besides, in recent years several new catechisms have been published, "one or two a decided improvement over the Council Catechism" (Messmer, "Spirago's Method", p. 558). Among the recent catechisms are the two of Father Faerber, the large and small catechisms of Father Groenings, S. J., and the "Holy Family Series of Catholic Catechisms", by Francis H. Butler, of the Diocese of Boston (1902). The three graded catechisms of this series give on the left page the questions and answers, on the right a "Reading Lesson)", dealing in fuller, and connected, form with the matter contained in the questions and answers. Some very practical features (reading part, followed by questions and answers, appropriate hymns, and pictorial illustrations) mark the "Text-books of Religion for Parochial and Sunday Schools", edited since 1898 by Father Yorke. These last two series to some extent depart from the traditional method and indicate a new movement in catechetical teaching. A more radical change in the style of the catechism, namely the complete abandonment of the question-and-answer method, has recently been proposed (see below, under II and III of this article, and "Am. Eccl. Rev.", 1907; Jan., and Feb., 1908). The First Plenary Council of Baltimore (1852) appointed Bishop Neumann to write, or revise, a German catechism the use of which, after its approbation by the archbishop and all the German-speaking bishops, should be obligatory. This decree shared the fate of the council's demand for a uniform English catechism. The Third Plenary Council (1884) decreed that the catechism to be issued by its order should be translated into the languages of those parishes in which religious instruction is given in any other than the English tongue. But the translation of the council catechism met with little favour. Another regulation, however, contained in the same decree of the council (ccxix), was gradually carried into effect. The bishops assembled expressed an earnest desire that in schools where English was not used the Christian Doctrine should be taught not only in the foreign tongue there used, but also in English. Undoubtedly this was a wise provision. For the young people of the second or third generation find it difficult to understand the native language of their parents; hearing discussions or attacks on their religion, they are hardly able to answer if they have not learnt the catechism in English. Moreover, after leaving school many young people have to live among English-speaking people, in places where there is no congregation of their own nationality; if they have not been taught religion in English they are tempted not to attend sermons, they feel embarrassed in going to confession, and thus may gradually drift away from the Church. In order to obviate these dangers, various catechisms (Deharbe, Faerber, Groenings, etc.) have been published with German and English texts on opposite pages. Similarly, there are Polish-English, Bohemian-English, and other editions with double text. In most Italian schools catechism is taught chiefly in English, and only the prayers in Italian. Unwise as it would be to force a change of languages in catechetical teaching, it would be equally injudicious to artificially retard the natural development. The slow but steady tendency is towards the gradual adoption of the English language in preaching and teaching catechism, and it seems but reasonable to think that some day there will be among the Catholics in the United States not only unity in faith in the substance of the catechism, but also in its external form and language.

A number of German immigrants entered Pennsylvania about 1700, a considerable portion of them being Catholics. In 1759 the German Catholics in Philadelphia outnumbered those of the English tongue, and in 1789 they opened the church of the Holy Trinity, the first, exclusively national church in the United States. Since 1741 German Jesuits have ministered to the spiritual needs of their countrymen, and Catholic schools have been established in the Pennsylvania settlements. It was natural that the German Jesuits should introduce the Catechism of Canisius, which for centuries had been universally used throughout Germany. The best Known American edition of this famous catechism is that printed in Philadelphia, in 1810: "Catholischer Catechismus, worin die Catholische Lehre nach den f nf Hauptst cken V. P. Petri Canisii, aus der Gesellschaft Jesu, erkl rt wird". The author or editor of this book was Adam Britt, pastor of the Holy Trinity Church, Philadelphia, who died at Conewaga (1822) as a member of the Society of Jesus. During several decades the Catechism of Canisius was generally used by the German Catholics in the United States. The Redemptorists came to this country in 1833 and soon had charge of flourishing German parishes in nearly all the more important cities. The Venerable John N. Neumann, afterwards Bishop of Philadelphia, wrote, while rector of the Redemtorist house at Pittsburg, about the year 1845, a small and a large catechism. These texts, also known as the "Redemptorist Catechisms", had a wide circulation, whereas those written later by Father Weninger, S. J., and Father Müller, C. SS. R., never became popular. The second half of the nineteenth century may be called the era of Deharbe's Catechism. In 1850 the "Katholischer Katechismus der Lehrbegriffe" was issued in Cincinnati, which by this time had become a centre of German Catholic population with flourishing parochial schools. Bishop Purcell declares in the approbation that the German catechisms previously published were not to be reprinted, but that this "Regensburg [Ratisbon] Catechism, long in use in Germany", was to be the only one in his diocese. Although the name of the author was not given, it was in reality Father Deharbe's "Large Catechism". Since that time numerous editions of the different catechisms of Deharbe appeared with various adaptations and modifications, and for nearly fifty years Deharbe reigned supreme. This supremacy has been challenged within the last two decades. Father Müller, C. SS. R., in the preface to his catechism, severely criticized Deharbe's as a book "which it is difficult for children to learn and to understand". Father Faerber, who devoted forty years to catechetical instruction, produced in 1895 a textbook which commends itself by its simplicity and clearness, although the critics, who charged it with incompleteness and a certain lack of accuracy, were not altogether wrong. Almost simultaneously with Father Faerber's book appeared an excellent, thoroughly revised, edition of Deharbe's texts, from which many defects had been expunged. Finally, in 1900, Father Groenings, S. J., published two catechisms, a small and a large one.

Development of Catechizing after the Council of Trent -- Mindful that the work of catechizing was more important than the issue of catechisms, the Council of Trent decreed that "the bishops shall take care that at least on the Lord's day and other festivals the children in every parish be carefully taught the rudiments of the faith and obedience to God and their parents" (Sess. IV, De Ref., c. iv). In 1560 the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine was founded in Rome by a Milanese, and was approved by St. Pius V in 1571. St. Charles Borromeo in his provincial synods laid down excellent rules on catechizing; every Christian was to know the Lord's Prayer, the Hail Mary, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments; confessors were ordered to examine their penitents as to their knowledge of these formularies (V Prov. Concil., 1579). He also established schools in the villages, in addition to increasing the number in the towns. Besides the renewed activity of the older orders, the Jesuits, the Barnabites, and the Clerks Regular of Pious Schools (Piarists), who devoted themselves to the education of the young, took special care of the religious instruction of those entrusted to them. In this connection three names are especially worthy of mention: St. Vincent de Paul, St. Francis de Sales, and M. Olier. One of St. Francis's first acts as a bishop was to organize catechetical instruction throughout his diocese, and he himself took his turn with his canons in this holy work. St. Vincent founded his congregation of Priests of the Mission for the purpose of instructing the poor, especially in the villages. The missionaries were to teach the catechism twice a day during each mission. In his own parish of Ch tillon he established the Confraternity for the Assistance of the Poor, and one of the duties of the members was to instruct as well as to give material aid. So, too, the Sisters of Charity not only took care of the sick and the poor but also taught the children. M. Olier, both in the seminary and in the parish of Saint-Sulpice, laid special stress on the work of catechizing. The method which he introduced will be described in the second part of this article. The Brothers of the Christian Schools, founded by St. Jean-Baptiste de la Salle, devoted themselves especially to religious as well as secular instruction. Finding that the very poor were unable to attend school on weekdays, the saintly founder introduced secular lessons on Sundays. This was in 1699, nearly a century before such teaching was given in Protestant England.

II. PRACTICAL CATECHETICS

Catechizing (catechesis), as we have seen, is instruction which is at once religious, elementary, and oral.

Catechizing is a religious work not simply because it treats of religious subjects, but because its end or object is religious. The teacher should endeavour to influence the child's heart and will, and not be content with putting a certain amount of religious knowledge into its head; for, as Aristotle would say, the end of catechizing is not knowledge, but practice. Knowledge, indeed, there must be, and the more of it the better in this age of widespread secular education; but the knowledge must lead to action. Both teacher and child must realize that they are engaged in a religious work, and not in one of the ordinary lessons of the day. It is the neglect to realize this that is responsible for the little effect produced by long and elaborate teaching. Religious knowledge comes to be looked upon by the child merely as a branch of other knowledge, and having as little to do with conduct as the study of vulgar fractions. "When the child is fighting its way through the temptations of the world, it will have to draw far more largely on its stock of piety than on its stock of knowledge" (Furniss, "Sunday School or Catechism?). The work of a teacher in the Church will be directed chiefly to this, that the faithful earnestly desire 'to know Jesus Christ and Him crucified', and that they be firmly convinced and with the innermost piety and devotion of heart believe, that 'there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved', for 'He is the propitiation for our sins'. But as in this we do know that we have known Him, if 'we keep His commandments', the next consideration and one intimately connected with the foregoing, is to show that life is not to be spent in ease and sloth, but that we 'ought to walk even as He walked', and with all earnestness 'pursue justice, godliness, faith, charity, mildness'; for He 'gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people acceptable, pursuing good works'; which things the Apostle commands pastors to 'speak and exhort'. But as our Lord and Saviour has not only declared, hut has also shown by His own example, that the Law and the Prophets depend on love, and as also, according to the confirmation of the Apostle, 'the end of the commandments and the fulfilment of the Law is charity, no one can doubt that this, as a paramount duty, should be attended to with the utmost assiduity, that the faithful people be excited to a love of the infinite goodness of God towards us; that, inflamed with a sort of divine ardour, they may be powerfully attracted to the supreme and all-perfect good, to adhere to which is solid happiness" (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Pref., x).

The persons concerned in catechizing (teachers and taught) and the times and places for catechizing can hardly be treated apart. But it will be best to begin with the persons. The duty of providing suitable religious instruction for children is primarily incumbent on their parents. This they may fulfil either by teaching them themselves or by entrusting them to others. Next to the natural parents the godparents have this duty. The parish priest should remind both the parents and godparents of their obligation; and he, too, as the spiritual father of those entrusted to his care, is bound to instruct them. In Pius X's Encyclical Letter on the teaching of Christian doctrine it is enacted

"(1) that all parish priests, and in general, all those entrusted with the care of souls, shall on every Sunday and feast day throughout the year, without exception, give boys and girls an hour's instruction from the catechism on those things which every one must believe and do in order to be saved; (2) at stated times during the year they shall prepare boys and girls by continued instruction, lasting several days, to receive the sacraments of penance and confirmation; (3) they shall likewise and with special care on all the weekdays in Lent, and if necessary on other days after the feast of Easter, prepare boys and girls by suitable instruction and exhortations to make their first Communion in a holy manner; (4) in each and every parish the society, commonly called the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, shall be canonically erected; through this the parish priests, especially in the places where there is a scarcity of priests, will have lay helpers for the catechetical instruction in pious lay persons who will devote themselves to the office of teaching."

In countries where there are Catholic schools religious instruction is given on weekdays either before or after the secular instruction. As is well known, for the sake of this privilege the faithful have contributed enormous sums of money to build and support schools. Where this is the case the difficulty is only a financial one. Nevertheless, the First Provincial Council of Westminster warns the pastor not to make over this duty of catechizing "so far to others, however good or religious they may be, as not to visit the schools frequently and instil into the tender minds of youth the principles of true faith and piety". We see, then, that the work of giving religious instruction belongs to the parents, to priests with the care of souls, to the teachers in Catholic schools, and to other lay helpers.

Turning now to those who are to be taught, we may consider first the young and then those who are grown up. The young may be divided into those who are receiving elementary education (primary scholars) and those who are more advanced (secondary scholars). Although in many dioceses the scholars are arranged in classes corresponding to the secular classes, we may consider them for our present purpose as divided into three groups: those who have not been to confession; those who have been to confession but have not made their first Communion; and those who have made their first Communion. In the case of the first group the instruction must be of the most rudimentary kind; but, as already pointed out, this does not mean that the little ones should be taught nothing except the first part of some catechism; they should have the Creed and the Commandments, the Our Father and the Hail Mary, explained to them, together with the forgiveness of sin by the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance. The principal events in the life of Christ will be found to be an ever-interesting subject for them. How far it is wise to talk to them about Creation and the Fall, the Deluge and the stories of the early patriarchs, may be a matter of discussion among teachers. In any case great care should be taken not to give them any notions which they may afterwards have to discard. If is of importance at this stage to tell the children in the simplest language something about the services of the Church, for they are now beginning to be present at these. Any one who has charge of them there, or, better still, who will recall his own early memories, will understand what a hardship it is to a child to have to sit through a high Mass with a sermon. The second group (those preparing for first Communion) will of course be able to receive more advanced instruction in each of the four branches mentioned above, with special reference to the Holy Eucharist. In instructing both groups the subjects should be taught dogmatically, that is, authoritatively, appealing rather to the children's faith than to their reasoning powers. The after-Communion instruction of elementary scholars will be almost similar to the instruction given to younger secondary scholars, and will consist in imparting wider and deeper knowledge and insisting more upon proofs. When they grow up their difficulty will be not only the observance of the law, but the reason of it. They will ask not only, What must I believe and do? but also, Why must I believe it or do it? Hence the importance of thorough instruction in the authority of the Church, Scripture texts, and also appeals to right reason. This brings us to the subject of catechizing grown-up persons. Pius X goes on to speak of this matter, after laying down the regulations for the young: "In these days adults not less than the young stand in need of religious instruction. All perish priests, and others having the care of souls, in addition to the homily on the Gospel delivered at the parochial Mass on all days of obligation, shall explain the catechism for the faithful in an easy style, suited to the intelligence of their hearers, at such time of the day as they may deem most convenient for the people, but not during the hour in which the children are taught. In this instruction they shall make use of the Catechism of the Council of Trent; and they shall so order if that the whole matter of the Creed, the Sacraments, the Decalogue, the Lord's Prayer, and the Precepts of the Church shall be treated in the space of four or five years."

The subjects to be treated of are laid down by Pius X: "As the things divinely revealed are so many and so various that it is no easy task either to acquire a knowledge of them, or, having acquired that knowledge, to retain them in the memory, . . . our predecessors have very wisely reduced this whole force and scheme of saving doctrine to these four distinct heads: the Apostles' Creed; the Sacraments; the Ten Commandments; and the Lord's Prayer. In the doctrine of the Creed are contained all things which are to be held according to the discipline of the Christian Faith, whether they regard the knowledge of God, or the creation and government of the world, or the redemption of the human race, or the rewards of the good and the punishments of the wicked. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments comprehends the signs and as it were the instruments for obtaining divine grace. In the Decalogue is laid down whatever has reference to the Law, 'the end' whereof 'is charity'. Finally, in the Lord's Prayer is contained whatever can be desired, hoped, or salutarily prayed for by men. It follows that these four commonplaces, as it were, of Sacred Scripture being explained, there can scarcely be wanting anything to be learned by a Christian man" (ib., xii). It must be borne in mind that catechetical instruction should be elementary; but this of course is a relative term, according as the pupil is an adult or a child. This difference has been dealt with above in speaking of the persons concerned in catechizing. It may be pointed out here, however, that elementary knowledge is not the same as partial knowledge. Even young children should he taught something of each of the four divisions mentioned above, viz., that they have to believe in God and to do God's will, and to obtain His grace by means of prayer and the sacraments. Further instruction will consist in developing each of these heads. Besides what is ordinarily understood by Christian doctrine, catechizing should treat of Christian history and Christian worship. Christian history will include the story of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Church. Christian worship will include the Church's calendar (the feasts and fasts) and her services and devotions. These three -- doctrine, history, and worship -- are not altogether distinct, and may often be best taught together. For example, the second article of the Creed should be taught in such a way as to bring out the doctrine of the Incarnation, the beautiful story of Christ's birth and childhood, and the meaning and the services of Advent and Christmas. The Bible history and the history of the Church will afford countless instances bearing on the various doctrines and heresies of the doctrinal part of the catechism, and the virtues and contrary vices of the practical part.

The question of catechetical methods is difficult and has given rise to much controversy. Father Furniss long ago, in his "Sunday School or Catechism?" and Bishop Bellord later on, in his "Religious Education and its Failures", passed a wholesale condemnation on our present method, and attributed to it the falling away of so many Catholics from the Faith. "The chief cause of the 'leakage' is the imperfection of our systems of religious instruction. Those methods seem to be antiquated, injudicious, wasteful, sometimes positively injurious to the cause" (Bp. Bellord, op. cit., p. 7). Part of the blame is laid upon catechizing, and part upon the catechisms. Of the latter we shall speak presently. Again, the blame is twofold and is not altogether consistent. The children are declared not to know their religion, or, knowing it quite well, not to put it into practice. In either case they are of course lost to the Church when they grow up. Both the bishop and the redemptorist complain that religious instruction is made a task, and so fails either to be learnt at all, or, if it is learnt, it is learnt in such a way as to become hateful to the child and to have no bearing on his conduct in after-life. Both are especially severe on the attempt to make the children learn by heart. The bishop quotes a number of experienced missionary priests who share his views. It seems to us that, in considering the methods of catechizing, we have to bear in mind two very different sets of conditions. In some countries religious instruction forms part of the daily curriculum, and is mainly given on weekdays by trained teachers. Where this is the case it is not difficult to secure that the children shall learn by heart some official textbook. With this as a foundation the priest (who will by no means restrict his labours to Sunday work) will be able to explain and illustrate and enforce what they have learnt by heart. The teachers' business will be chiefly to put the catechism into the child's head; the priest must get it into his heart. Very different are the conditions which Father Furniss and Bishop Bellord are dealing with. Where the priest has to get together on a Sunday, or one day in the week, a number of children of all ages, who are not obliged to be present; and when he has to depend upon the assistance of lay persons who have no training in teaching; it is obvious that he should do his best to make the instruction as simple, as interesting, and as devotional as possible. As in other branches of instruction we may follow either the analytical or the synthetical method. In the former we take a textbook, a catechism, and explain it word for word to the scholar and make him commit it to memory. The book is of prime importance; the teacher occupies quite a secondary place. Though it might convey a wrong impression to call this the Protestant method, yet it is exactly in accordance with the Protestant system of religious teaching generally. The written, printed word (Bible or Catechism) is to them all in all. The synthetical method, on the other hand, puts the teacher in the forefront. The scholars are bidden to look up to him and listen to his voice, and receive his words on his authority. "Faith cometh by hearing." After they have thoroughly learnt their lesson in this way, a book may be then set before them, and be explained to them and committed to memory, as containing in a fixed form the substance of what they have received by word of mouth. Whatever may be said of the relative advantages of the two methods in the teaching of secular subjects, there can be no doubt that the synthetical method is the proper one for catechetical instruction. The office of catechizing belongs to the Church's magisterium (teaching authority), and so is best exercised by the living voice. "The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth" (Mal., ii, 7).

A. The Sulpician Method

The Sulpician Method of catechizing is celebrated throughout the world, and hits produced wonderful fruits wherever it has been employed. We cannot, therefore, do better than give a short account of it here.

The whole catechism consists of three principal exercises and three secondary ones. The principal are:

1. the recitation of the letter of the catechism, with an easy explanation of it by way of question and answer;
2. the instruction;
3. the reading of the Gospel and the homily.

The secondary exercises are:

1. the admonitions from the head catechist;
2. the hymns;
3. prayers.

These should be interspersed with the former. The duration fixed by St. Francis de Sales for a complete catechism is two hours. The place should be the church, but in a separate chapel rather than in the body of the church, Great importance is attached to the "game of the goodmark" (le jeu du bon point) and the analyses. The former consists in selecting the child who has answered best in the first part (the questioning on the catechism), and putting to him a series of short, clear, and definite questions upon the matter in hand and doing this as a sort of challenge to the child. The other children are roused to interest at the notion of a contest between the catechist and one of themselves, and this gives occasion for a better understanding of the subject under treatment. If the child is considered to have won, he receives a small card of reward (le bon point). "For the success of the game of the bon point it is important to prepare beforehand and to write down the questions which are to be put to the children, even the commonest ones." The children should be made to write out a short account of the instruction given after the questioning. These analyses should be corrected by the teacher, and a mark ("fair", "good", "very good") should be attached to each. In order to secure regular attendance, registers should be carefully kept, and rewards (pictures, medals, etc.) should be given to those who have not missed a catechism. Treats and feasts should also be given. The spirit of emulation should be encouraged both for attendance and good answering and analyses. Various minor offices should be conferred upon the best children. Punishment should very seldom be resorted to.

Though the Sulpician method insists upon a thorough knowledge of the letter of the catechism, it is clear that the teacher is of prime importance rather than the book. Indeed, the success or failure of the catechism may be said to depend entirely upon him, If is he who has to do the questioning and give the instruction and the homily on the Gospel. Unless he can keep the attention of the children fixed upon him, he is bound to fail. Hence, the greatest care should be taken in selecting and training the catechists. These are sometimes seminarists or nuns, but lay persons must often be taken. By far the larger portion of "The Method of Saint Sulpice" is devoted to the instruction of the catechists (cap. iv, "Of the instruction of the children"; cap v, "Of the sanctification of the children"; cap. vi, "Of the necessity of making the catechism pleasant to the children, and some means for attaining this object"; cap. vii, "How to turn the catechism into exercises of emulation"; cap. viii, "How to maintain good order and ensure the success of the catechisms").

So far the "Method" has dealt with the catechisms generally. Next comes the division of the catechisms. These are four in number: the Little Catechism, the First-Communion Catechism, the Weekday Catechism, and the Catechism of Perseverance. The Weekday Catechism is the only one which requires any explanation here. A certain time before the period of first Communion a list is made out of such children as are to be admitted to the Holy Table, and these are prepared by more frequent exercises, held on weekdays as well as on Sundays. As a rule, only children who have attended for twelve months are admitted to the weekday catechisms, and the usual age is twelve years. The weekday catechism is held on two days of the week and for about three months. The order is much the same as that of the Sunday catechism, except that the Gospel and the homily are omitted. The children are examined twice during the weekday catechisms: the first time about the middle of the course; the second, a week before the retreat. Those who have often been absent without cause or who have answered badly, or whose conduct has been unsatisfactory, are rejected.

A complete account of the method will be found in "The Method of Saint Sulpice" (Tr.), and also in "The Ministry of Catechising" (Tr.) by Mgr. Dupanloup.

B. The Munich Method

In 1898 Dr. A. Weber, editor of the "Katechetische Blätter" of Munich, urged the adaptation of the Herbart-Ziller system in teaching Christian doctrine. This system requires, "first, a division of the catechetical matter into strict methodical units, so that those questions are co-ordinated which are essentially one. Secondly, it insists on a methodical following of the three essential steps, viz., Presentation, Explanation, and Application -- with a short Preparation before Presentation, then Combination after Explanation, as more or less nonessential points. It therefore never begins with the catechetical questions, but always with an objective Presentation -- in the form of a story from life or the Bible, a catechetical, Biblical or historical picture, a point of liturgy, church history, or the lives of the saints, or some such objective lesson. Out of this objective lesson only will the catechetical concepts be evolved and abstracted, then combined into the catechism answer and formally applied to life. These catechists aim at capturing the child's interest from the start and preserving his good-will and attention throughout" (Amer. Eccl. Rev., March, 1908, p. 342). " Preparation turns the attention of the pupil in a definite direction. The pupil hears the lesson-aim in a few well-chosen words. At this stage of the process the pupil's ideas are also corrected and made clearer. Presentation gives an object-lesson. If at all possible, use one such object only. There are sound psychological reasons for this, although it becomes occasionally useful to employ several. Explanation might also be called concept-formation, Out of the objective lesson are here construed, or evolved, the catechetical concepts. From the concrete objective presentation we here pass to the general concept. Combination gathers all the ideas derived from the lesson into the text of the catechism. Application finally strengthens and deepens the truths we have gathered and variously widens them for purposes of life. We can here insert further examples, give additional motives, apply the lessons to the actual life of the child, train the child in judging his own moral conduct, and end with some particular resolution, or an appropriate prayer, song, hymn, or quotation" (Amer. Eccl. Rev., Apr., 1908, p. 465). In the same number of the Review (p. 460) will be found an excellent lesson on "Sin", drawn up on the lines of the Munich Method. Further information will be found in Weber's "Die Münchener katechetische Methode", and Göttler's "Der Münchener katechetische Kurs, 1905".

Instruction of Converts

The careful instruction of those who apply for admission into the Church, or who wish information about her doctrines and practices, is a sacred duty incumbent at times on almost every priest. No one may prudently embrace the Christian religion unless he sees clearly that it is credible. Hence the motives of credibility, the sure arguments that convince the understanding and move the will to command the assent of faith, must be clearly set forth. The higher the social or intellectual position of inquirers, the more thorough and diligent should be the instruction. Each one is to be guided not merely to understand the Church's dogmas, as far as he can, but to practise the exercises of Christian perfection. Before the usual profession of faith, converts ought to be examined on their knowledge of all matters that must be known in order to be saved. This should be done with great care, for at this time they are docile. After their admission to the sacraments some may easily fancy themselves fully instructed, and for want of further study remain ignorant until death, unable to train properly their children or dependents. In the case of uneducated persons who are drawn to the Church, the prudent director will avoid such controversy as might lead his pupil to defend errors hitherto unknown. Better educated inquirers are to be fully satisfied on all points that they have held against Catholic doctrine and must be provided with the means of resisting both internal and external temptations. The length of time and the character of the instruction will vary with each individual.

It follows from what has been said that the times and places will vary according to the different sorts of persons to be instructed and the habits of the different countries. Speaking generally, however, at least some instruction should be given on Sundays and in the church, so as to bring out the religious character of catechizing.

III. MODERN CATECHISMS

When speaking of the history of catechetics we saw that, though the method was originally and properly oral, the custom soon arose of composing catechisms -- i.e. short manuals of elementary religious instruction, usually by means of questions and answers.

A catechism is of the greatest use both to the teacher and the scholar. To the teacher it is a guide as to the subjects to be taught, the order of dealing with them, and the choice of words in which the instruction should be conveyed; above all, it is the best means of securing uniformity and correctness of doctrinal and moral teaching. The use which the teacher should make of if must be understood in connection with what has been said above about the methods of catechizing. To the scholar a catechism gives in a brief form a summary of what the teacher has been imparting to him; and by committing it to memory he can be sure that he has grasped the substance of his lesson. As already observed, this is not a difficult matter where there are Catholic schools under trained expert teachers accustomed to making the children learn by heart; but where the teaching has to be done in evening or Sunday schools by inexperienced persons, and the scholars are not under the same control as in the day schools, the portions to be committed to memory must be reduced to a minimum.

A good catechism should conform strictly to the definition given above. That is to say, it should be elementary, not a learned treatise of dogmatic, moral, and ascetical theology; and it should be simple in language, avoiding technical expressions as far as consistent with accuracy. Should the form of question and answer be maintained? No doubt it is not an interesting form for grown-up persons; but children prefer it because it lets them know exactly what they are likely to be asked. Moreover, this form keeps up the idea of a teacher and a disciple, and so is most in conformity with the fundamental notion of catechizing. What form the answers should take -- Yes or No, or a categorical statement -- is a matter of disagreement among the best teachers. It would seem that the decision depends on the character of the different languages and nations; some of them making extensive use of the affirmative and negative particles, while others reply by making statements. Archbishop Walsh of Dublin, in his instructions for the revision of the catechism, recommended "the introduction of short rending lessons, one to be appended to each chapter of the catechism. These reading lessons should deal, in somewhat fuller form, with the matter dealt with in the questions and answers of the catechism. The insertion of such lessons would make if possible to omit without loss many questions the answers to which now impose a heavy burden on the memory of the children. . . . If these lessons are written with care and skill, and in a style attractive as well as simple, the children will soon have them learned by heart, from the mere fact of repeatedly reading them, and without any formal effort at committing them to memory" (Irish Eccl. Record, Jan., 1892). An excellent means of assisting the memory is the use of pictures. These should be selected with the greatest care; they should be accurate as well as artistic. The catechism used in Venice when Pius X was patriarch was illustrated.

As there are three stages of catechetical instruction, so there should be three catechisms corresponding with these. The first should be very short and simple, but should give the little child some information about all four parts of religious knowledge. The second catechism, for those preparing for first Communion, should embody, word for word, without the slightest change, all the questions and answers of the first catechism. Further questions and answers, dealing with a more extensive knowledge, should be added in their proper places, after the earlier matter; and these will have special reference to the sacraments, more particularly the Holy Eucharist. The third catechism, for those who have made their first Communion, should in like manner embody the contents of the first and second catechisms, and add instruction belonging to the third stage mentioned above. For scholars beyond the elementary stages this third catechism may be used, with additions not in the form of question and answer and not necessarily to be learnt by heart. The great idea running through all the catechisms should be that the later ones should grow out of the earlier ones, and that the children should not be confused by differently worded answers to the same questions. Thus, the answer to the questions: What is charity? What is a sacrament? should be exactly the same in all the catechisms. Further information can be introduced by fresh questions. In some rare cases additions may be made at the end of the earlier answers, but never in the middle.

It was mentioned in the historical portion of this article that at the time of the Vatican Council, a proposal was made for the introduction of a uniform catechism for use throughout the Church. As the proposal was not carried out, we may here discuss the advantages and disadvantages a universal catechism. There can be no doubt that the present system of allowing each bishop to draw up a catechism for use in his diocese is open to strong objection. Happily, in these days there is no difficulty on the head of diversity of doctrine. The difficulty arises rather from the importance attached to learning the catechism by heart. People do not nowadays remain stationary in the neighbourhood in which they were born. Their children, in passing from one diocese to another, are obliged to unlearn the wording of one catechism (a most difficult process) and learn the different wording of another. Even where all the dioceses of a province or country have the same catechism the difficulty arises in passing into a new province or country. A single catechism for universal use would prevent all this waste of time and confusion, besides being a strong bond of union between the nations. At the same time it must be recognized that the conditions of the Church vary considerably in the different countries. In a Catholic country, for instance, it is not necessary to touch upon controversial questions, whereas in non-Catholic countries these must be thoroughly gone into. This will notably be the case with regard to the introduction of texts in the actual words of the Holy Scriptures. Thus, in the Valladolid Catechism there is not a single quotation from the Old or New Testament except the Our Father and the first part of the Hail Mary -- and even of these the source is not mentioned. The Commandments are not given in the words of Scripture. There is no attempt to prove any doctrine; everything is stated dogmatically on the authority of the Church. A catechism on these lines is clearly unsuited for children living among Protestants. As already pointed out, the instruction of those who have made their first Communion should embrace proof as well as statement. The Fathers of the Vatican Council recognized the difficulty, and endeavoured to meet it by a compromise. A new catechism, based upon Bellarmine's Catechism and other catechisms of approved value, was to be drawn up in Latin, and was to be translated into the different vernaculars with the authority of the bishops, who were empowered to make such additions as they might think fit; but these additions were to be kept quite distinct from the text. The unhappy events of the latter part of the year 1870 prevented this proposal from being carried out.

(a) The present pontiff [1909], Pius X, has prescribed a catechism for use in the Diocese of Rome and in its ecclesiastical province, and has expressed a desire that it should be adopted throughout Italy. It has been translated into English, French, Spanish, and German, and a movement has begun with a view to extending its use to other countries besides Italy, especially to Spain, where the conditions are similar. (See "Irish Eccl. Record", March, 1906, p. 221; "Amer. Eccl. Rev.", Nov., 1906.) This catechism consists of two parts, or rather two distinct books: one for "lower classes" and one for "higher classes". The first, or "Shorter Catechism", is meant for those who have not made their first Communion; the second, or "Longer Catechism", for those who have already been through the other. Both are constructed on the same lines: an introductory portion, and then five sections treating in turn of the Creed, Prayer, the Commandments, the Sacraments, the Virtues, etc. The "Longer Catechism" contains, in addition, in catechetical form, an instruction on the feasts of Our Lord, the Blessed Virgin, and the Saints, and a short "History of Religion" (the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Church) in the form of a narrative. But though the two catechisms are on the same main lines, they have very little connection with each other. Hardly any of the questions and answers are the same; so that a knowledge of the wording of the first is of little use, but rather an obstacle, in learning the second. It is worthy of note that, though texts of Scripture are not quoted, the second catechism contains a large number of questions and answers relating to the Holy Scriptures, among others the following: "Is the reading of the Bible necessary to all Christians? -- The reading of the Bible is not necessary to all Christians, because they are taught by the Church; still, the reading of it is very useful and recommended to all." Many of the answers in the second catechism are much longer than those in other catechisms. The catechism itself, without counting the lengthy instruction on the feasts and the "History of Religion", fills more than 200 pages 12mo in Bishop Byrne's translation.

(b) Throughout Great Britain only one catechism is officially in use. It was drawn up by a committee appointed by the Second Provincial Council of Westminster (1855), and is based upon the Douai Catechism. It has undergone several revisions, the last of these being for the purpose of eliminating the particles Yes and No, and making all the answers distinct categorical statements. If is remarkable for its frequent appeal to proofs from Holy Scripture. Though it has been subject to many attacks, it is justly considered to be a clear and logical statement of Catholic belief and practice, fitted to the needs of both children and grown-up persons seeking instruction. Perhaps it has this latter class too much in view, and hence it is sometimes wanting in simplicity. The omission of Yes and No and the avoidance of pronouns in the answers have been carried to a pedantic excess. Besides this ordinary catechism there is a smaller catechism, for younger children, which goes over the whole ground in a more elementary form; it is to some extent free from the objection just mentioned; but this advantage involves some verbal differences between the answers of the two catechisms. There is no official advanced catechism. For the more advanced classes a number of excellent "Manuals" are in use, e. g. "Instructions in Christian Doctrine"; Wenham's "Catechumen"; Carr's "Lamp of the Word"; Cafferata's "The Catechism, Simply Explained"; Fander's (Deharbe's) "Catechism". Howe's "Catechist" and Spirago's "Method of Christian Doctrine" (ed. Messmer) are used by those who are being trained to be teachers. Short Bible Histories, none of them official, are used in the more elementary classes, especially Formby's volumes; in the higher classes, Wenham's "New Testament Narrative", Richards' "Scripture History", and Knecht's "Practical Commentary". There are also separate books of the New Testament, edited by Mgr. Ward and by Father Sydney Smith, etc. It should be added that the elementary schools and the training colleges, besides many of the secondary schools and colleges, are examined in religious knowledge by inspectors appointed by the bishops.

(c) In Ireland the catechism most commonly used at the present time is the "Catechism ordered by the National Synod of Maynooth. . . . for General Use throughout the Irish Church". After a short Introduction on God and the creation of the world and on man and the end of his creation, it treats in turn of the Creed, the Commandments, Prayer, and the Sacraments. The answers are short and clear, and, though Yes and No are excluded, the form of the answers is not always a rigid repetition of the words of the question. Various important improvements have been suggested by Archbishop Walsh (see "Irish Eccl. Record", Jan., 1892, and following numbers). There is also a smaller edition of the Maynooth Catechism. The manuals used in the advanced classes are much the same as those used in Great Britain, together with the "Companion to the Catechism" (Gill). Religious inspection is general.

(For the United States, see above under HISTORY OF CATECHETICS.)

(d) The First Provincial Council of Quebec (1852) ordered two catechisms for use in Canada: Butler's Catechism for those speaking English, and a new French catechism for those speaking French. The latter is called "The Quebec Catechism", and is also issued in an abridged form.

(e) In Australia the Maynooth Catechism is generally used. But the bishops in the Plenary Council of 1885 decreed that a new catechism should be drawn up for use throughout Australia.

From this enumeration it will be seen how far we are from having any uniform catechism for the English-speaking peoples. If we consider the Continent of Europe, we find that in France, Germany, and Spain different catechisms are in use in the different dioceses. In the German-speaking provinces of Austria there is one single catechism for all the dioceses, approved by the whole episcopate in 1894. It is issued in three forms: small, middle, and large. All of these are arranged on exactly the same lines: a short introduction, Faith and the Apostles' Creed, Hope and Prayer, Charity and the Commandments, Grace and the Sacraments, Justification and the Last Things. The middle catechism contains all the questions and answers of the small, in exactly the same words, and adds a considerable number of fresh ones. In like manner, the large catechism makes further additions. The small catechism has no texts from Scripture; the other two contain many texts, usually placed in notes at the foot of the page. The chief difference between the middle and large catechisms is that the latter deals more with reasons and proofs, and consequently gives a greater number of Scripture texts. Austria is, therefore, better off than most countries in the matter of the catechism. She has none of the difficulties arising from a multiplicity of manuals, and her single textbook is in the three forms described above as the ideal for all countries. Schuster's excellent Bible History is also in universal use, and is arranged by means of different type and signs so as to be accommodated to the three stages of the catechism. Religious training in Austria has, however, been severely criticized by Dr. Pichler, a high authority in that country. He considers the catechism as cumbersome, the work of a good theologian but a poor catechist; he advocates the compilation of a new Bible History on the lines of Knecht's manual; and he advocates the adoption of inductive methods. See "Unser Religionsunterricht, seine Mängel und deren Ursachen".

One of the best of the German catechisms is that of the Diocese of Augsburg, mainly the work of Kinsel and Hauser, and published in 1904. It is on the lines of Deharbe, but much simplified, and copiously illustrated. So, too, is the new Hungarian catechism (1907), which is issued in three editions: one for the first and second grade of elementary schools, one for the remaining four grades, and one for the high schools. Bishop Mailath of Transylvania has had the direction of the work. Poland has not been behindhand in reforming her catechetical teaching. A catechism has just been drawn up for the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades by Bishop Likowski and Valentine Gadowski. The answers to be learnt by heart are limited to forty in each year, and are short and simple. Each is followed by a fairly long explanation. This catechism contains 215 illustrations.

It should be noted that all Continental reformers have dropped the idea of making the answers theologically complete. The subsequent explanations supply what may be wanting. The answers are complete sentences, Yes and No being seldom used by themselves, and the order of the words in the answers follows that in the questions.

On the History of Catechetics: BAREILLE, Le Catéchisme Romain, Introduction (Montr jeau, 1906); HÉZARD, Histoire du catéchisme depuis la naissance de l'Eglise jusqu'a nos jours; THALHOFER, Entwicklung des katholischen Katechismus in Deutschland von Canisius bis Deharbe; PROBST, Geschichte der katholischen Katechese (Paderborn, 1887); (SPIRAGO, Method of Christian Doctrine, tr. MESSMER (New York, 1901), vi; BAREILLE in Dict. de théol. cath., s.v. Cat ch se; MANGENOT, ibid., s.v. Catéchisme; KNECHT in Kirchenlex., s. vv. Katechese, katechetik, Katechismus.

On Catechizing, Methods, etc.: DUPANLOUP, Method of Catechising (tr.); The Method of S. Sulpice (tr.); SPIRAGO ut supra; WALSH, Irish Eccl. Record, Jan., 1892; LAMBING, The Sunday School Teacher's Manual (1873); FURNISS, How to Teach at Catechism; Sunday School or Catechism; BELLORD, Religious Education and its Failures (Notre Dame, 1901); BAREILLE, MANGENOT, and KNECHT, ut supra; GLANCY, Preface to KNECHT, Bible Commentary for Schools (Freiburg, 1894); GIBSON, The Catechism made Easy (London, 1882); CARR, A Lamp of the Word and Instructor's Guide (Liverpool, 1892); Howe, The Catechist: or Headings and Suggestions for the Explanation of the Catechism (Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1895); SLOAN, The Sunday School Teacher's Guide to Success (New York, 1907); Amer. Eccl. Rev., Jan.-May, 1908; WEBER, Die Münchener katechetische Methode; G TTLER, Der Münchener katechetische Kurs, 1905 (1906).

Catechisms, Manuals, etc.

It would not be possible to give anything like a complete list of these. We shall content ourselves with mentioning a few of the best-known in use in English-speaking countries. Some have already been mentioned in the article. -- A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, prepared and enjoined by order of the Third Council of Baltimore (1885); The Catechism ordered by the National Synod of Maynooth and approved of by the Cardinal, the Archbishops, and the Bishops of Ireland for General Use throughout the Irish Church (Dublin, s. d.); A Short Catechism extracted from the Catechism ordered, etc. (Dublin, s. d.); A Catechism of Christian Doctrine approved by Cardinal Vaughan and the Bishops of England (London, 1902); The Explanatory Catechism of Christian Doctrine (the same with notes); The Little Catechism; an Abridgement of the Catechism of Christian Doctrine (London, s. d.); BUTLER, Catechism (Dublin, 1845); DEHARBE, Catechism of the Christian Religion (also known as Fander's Catechism)(New York, 1887); Companion to The Catechism (Dublin); SPIRAGO, The Catechism Explained, ed. CLARKE; GERARD, Course of Religious Instruction for Catholic Youth (London, 1901); De ZULUETA, Letters on Christian Doctrine; CAFFERATA, The Catechism Simply Explained (London, 1897); A Manual of Instruction in Christian Doctrine -- approved by Cardinal Wiseman and Cardinal Manning, much used in the higher schools and training colleges in the British Isles (London, 1861, 1871); WENHAM, The Catechumen, an Aid to the intelligent knowledge of the Catechism (London, 1881); POWER, Catechism: Doctrinal, Moral, Historical, and Liturgical (5th ed., Dublin, 1880).

Anglican: MACLEAR, A Class Book of the Catechism of the Church of England (London 1886).

There are many Bible Histories in use, but none of them officially recommended, though published with episcopal approval. The best-known are: The Children's Bible History for Home and School Use (a small elementary work of which nearly a million and a half have been printed; it is capable of improvement) (London, 1872); FORMBY, Pictorial Bible and Church History Stories, including Old Testament History, the Life of Christ, and Church History (London, 1871); KNECHT, Bible Commentary for Schools, ed. GLANCY (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1894); WENHAM, Readings from the Old Testament, New Testament Narrative (London, 1907); RICHARDS, Manual of Scripture History (London, 1885); COSTELLO, The Gospel Story (London, 1900); Scripture Manuals for Catholic Schools, ed. SMITH (London, 1899); St. Edmund's College Series of Scripture Manuals, WARD ed. (London, 1897).

T.B. SCANNELL

Doctrine of Addai

(Lat. Doctrina Addoei).

A Syriac document which relates the legend of the conversion of Edessa. It begins with the story of the letter of King Abgar to Christ and the reply of the latter, with some variations from the account drawn by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., I, xiii) from the Edessene archives. The reply was not a letter, as Eusebius says, but a verbal message, together with a portrait of Christ (not in Eusebius). After the Ascension Judas Thomas sent Addai, one of the seventy-two disciples, to Abgar. Addai (Thaddeus in Eusebius) healed the king of his sickness, and preached before him, relating the discovery of the True Cross by Protonice, wife of the Emperor Claudius; this, with all that follows, is later than Eusebius, being founded on the story of St. Helena. Addai then preaches to the people, who are converted. The heathen altars are thrown down, and the people are baptized. King Abgar induces the Emperor Tiberius to chastise the Jews for having crucified the Saviour. Churches are built by Addai, and he makes deacons and priests. On his death-bed he appoints Aggai his successor, ordains the deacon Palut priest, and gives his last admonitions. He was buried in the sepulchre of the king's ancestors. Many years after his death, Aggai, who ordained holy priests for the country, was martyred as he taught in the church by a rebellious son of Abgar. His successor, Palut, was obliged to go to Antioch in order to get episcopal consecration, which he received from Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, who "himself also received the hand from Zephyrinus, Bishop of the city of Rome, from the succession of the hand of the priesthood of Simon Cephas, which he received from Our Lord, who was there Bishop of Rome twenty-five years, in the days of the C sar, who reigned there thirteen years" (evidently Nero is meant, who reigned from October, 54, to June, 68). The anxiety of the writer to connect the Edessene succession with Rome is interesting; its derivation from the Petrine See of Antioch does not suffice him.

The doctrine of the book is not unorthodox, though some expressions might be understood in an Apollinarian sense. The mention of Holy Scripture must be noticed: "They read in the Old Testament and the New, and the Prophets, and the Acts of the Apostles, every day they meditated on them"; "a large number of people assembled day by day and came to the prayer of the service, and to [the reading] of the Old and New Testament, of the Diatessaron"; "But the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel, which ye read every day before the people, and the Epistles of Paul, which Simon Peter sent us from the city of Rome, and the Acts of the twelve Apostles, which John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus, these books read ye in the Churches of Christ, and with these read not any others, as there is not any other in which the truth that ye hold is written, except these books, which retain you in the faith to which ye have been called." The canon therefore excludes the Apocalypse and all the Catholic Epistles; in this it agrees with Aphraates, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Syriac stichometrical list of Cod. Sin. 10 (in Mrs. Lewis's Catalogue of Sinai Manuscripts), and probably with Ephrem. The Syriac Church, indeed, never accepted the Apocalypse and the four shorter Catholic Epistles; the three longer were admitted at all events later than 400, at an uncertain date. The Diatessaron was employed by the Syriac Church from its composition by Tatian c. 160 until it was proscribed by the famous Bishop of Edessa, Rabbula (d. 435).

We seem to find firm historical ground in the statement that Palut was consecrated bishop by Serapion, who was Bishop of Antioch c. 191-212 and really a contemporary of Pope Zephyrinus. But this shows that Addai, who made Palut a priest, was not one of the seventy-two Disciples of Christ. The first Christian King of Edessa was in reality Abgar IX (179-214) who was converted soon after 201, and this date tallies with that of Palut. It is possible that Palut was the first Bishop of Edessa; but it is surely more likely that there was already a Church and a bishop under the pagan kings in so important a city. An early date for the Abgar legend is sometimes based upon the promise in the message of Christ: "Thy city shall be blessed, and no enemy shall again become master of it forever." It is argued that this could not have been invented after the sacking of the city under Trajan in 116; but the writer might have passed over this event after a century and a half. The confusion of dates can hardly have arisen before the latter half of the third century, and the Edessene Acts used by Eusebius were probably not very old when he wrote. The "Doctrine of Addai" is yet later. The Finding of the Cross must be dated some time later than St. Helena; the miraculous picture of Christ was not seen by the Abbess Etheria when she visited Edessa c. 385. Hence the date of the work may be c. 400.

The "Doctrine of Addai" was first published in Syriac in a fragmentary form by Cureton, "Ancient Syriac documents" (London, 1864, a posthumous work), with a translation; another translation in "Ante-Nicene Chr. Libr.", XX. The full Syriac text was published by Phillips, with a translation (London, 1876). An Armenian version and (separately) a French translation, by the Mechitarist Father Leo Alishan, "Laboubnia, Lettre d'Abgar" (Venice, 1868).

The literature of the subject (including the Abgar legend, the Finding of the Cross, the Greek legend in the Acta Thadd i, and the origins of the Church of Edessa) is very large. The following works may be specially mentioned: LIPSIUS, Die edessenische Abgarsage kritisch untersucht (Brunswick, 1880); TIXERONT, Les origines de l'Eglise d'Edesse et la l gende d'Abgar (Paris, 1888); MARTIN, Les origines de l'Eglise d'Edesse et des glises syriennes (extr. from Revue des sc. eccl., Paris. 1889); BURKITT, Early Eastern Christianity (London, 1904); NESTLE, De sancta cruce (Berlin, 1889); on the picture of Christ, VON DOBSCH TZ, Christusbilder (Leipzig, 1899). Further references will be found in BARDENHEWER, Gesch. der altkirchl. Litt., I, 458; CHEVALIER, R pertoire, s.v. Abgar.

JOHN CHAPMAN

Dogma

I. DEFINITION

The word dogma (Gr. dogma from dokein) signifies, in the writings of the ancient classical authors, sometimes, an opinion or that which seems true to a person; sometimes, the philosophical doctrines or tenets, and especially the distinctive philosophical doctrines, of a particular school of philosophers (cf. Cic. Ac., ii, 9), and sometimes, a public decree or ordinance, as dogma poieisthai.

In Sacred Scripture it is used, at one time, in the sense of a decree or edict of the civil authority, as in Luke, ii, 1: "And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree [edictum, dogma] from Caesar Augustus" (cf. Acts, xvii, 7; Esther, iii, 3); at another time, in the sense of an ordinance of the Mosaic Law as in Eph., ii 15: "Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees" (dogmasin), and again, it is applied to the ordinances or decrees of the first Apostolic Council in Jerusalem: "And as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees [dogmata] for to keep, that were decreed by the apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem" (Acts, xvi, 4).

Among the early Fathers the usage was prevalent of designating as dogmas the doctrines and moral precepts taught or promulgated by the Saviour or by the Apostles; and a distinction was sometimes made between Divine, Apostolical, and ecclesiastical dogmas, according as a doctrine was conceived as having been taught by Christ, by the Apostles, or as having been delivered to the faithful by the Church.

But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.

The three classes of revealed truths. Theologians distinguish three classes of revealed truths: truths formally and explicitly revealed; truths revealed formally, but only implicitly; and truths only virtually revealed.

A truth is said to be formally revealed, when the speaker or revealer really means to convey that truth by his language, to guarantee it by the authority of his word. The revelation is formal and explicit, when made in clear express terms. It is formal but only implicit, when the language is somewhat obscure, when the rules of interpretation must be carefully employed to determine the meaning of the revelation. And a truth is said to be revealed only virtually, when it is not formally guaranteed by the word of the speaker, but is inferred from something formally revealed.

Now, truths formally and explicitly revealed by God are certainly dogmas in the strict sense when they are proposed or defined by the Church. Such are the articles of the Apostles' Creed. Similarly, truths revealed by God formally, but only implicitly, are dogmas in the strict sense when proposed or defined by the Church. Such, for example, are the doctrines of Transubstantiation, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, some of the Church's teaching about the Saviour, the sacraments, etc. All doctrines defined by the Church as being contained in revelation are understood to be formally revealed, explicitly or implicitly. It is a dogma of faith that the Church is infallible in defining these two classes of revealed truths; and the deliberate denial of one of these dogmas certainly involves the sin of heresy. There is a diversity of opinion about virtually revealed truths, which has its roots in a diversity of opinion about the material object of faith (see Faith). It is enough to say here that, according to some theologians, virtually revealed truths belong to the material object of faith and become dogmas in the strict sense when defined or proposed by the Church; and according to others, they do not belong to the material object of faith prior to their definition, but become strict dogmas when defined; and, according to others, they do not belong to the material object of Divine faith at all, nor become dogmas in the strict sense when defined, but may be called mediately-Divine or ecclesiastical dogmas. In the hypothesis that virtually revealed conclusions do not belong to the material object of faith, it has not been defined that the Church is infallible in defining these truths, the infallibility of the Church, however, in relation to these truths is a doctrine of the Church theologically certain, which cannot lawfully be denied -- and though the denial of an ecclesiastical dogma would not be heresy in the strict sense, it could entail the sundering of the bond of faith and expulsion from the Church by the Church's anathema or excommunication.

II. DIVISIONS

The divisions of dogma follow the lines of the divisions of faith. Dogmas can be (1) general or special; (2) material or formal; (3) pure or mixed; (4) symbolic or non-symbolic; (5) and they can differ according to their various degrees of necessity.

(1) General dogmas are a part of the revelation meant for mankind and transmitted from the Apostles; while special dogmas are the truths revealed in private revelations. Special dogmas, therefore, are not, strictly speaking, dogmas at all; they are not revealed truths transmitted from the Apostles; nor are they defined or proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful generally.

(2) Dogmas are called material (or Divine, or dogmas in themselves, in se) when abstraction is made from their definition by the Church, when they are considered only as revealed; and they are called formal (or Catholic, or "in relation to us", quoad nos) when they are considered both as revealed and defined. Again, it is evident that material dogmas are not dogmas in the strict sense of the term.

(3) Pure dogmas are those which can be known only from revelation, as the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.; while mixed dogmas are truths which can be known from revelation or from philosophical reasoning as the existence and attributes of God. Both classes are dogmas in the strict sense, when considered as revealed and defined.

(4) Dogmas contained in the symbols or creeds of the Church are called symbolic; the remainder are non-symbolic. Hence all the articles of the Apostles' Creed are dogmas -- but not all dogmas are called technically articles of faith, though an ordinary dogma is sometimes spoken of as an article of faith.

(5) Finally, there are dogmas belief in which is absolutely necessary as a means to salvation, while faith in others is rendered necessary only by Divine precept; and some dogmas must be explicitly known and believed, while with regard to others implicit belief is sufficient.

III. OBJECTIVE CHARACTER OF DOGMATIC TRUTH;
INTELLECTUAL BELIEF IN DOGMA

As a dogma is a revealed truth, the intellectual character and objective reality of dogma depend on the intellectual character and objective truth of Divine revelation. We will here apply to dogma the conclusions developed at greater length under the heading of revelation. Are dogmas considered merely as truths revealed by God, real objective truths addressed to the human mind? Are we bound to believe them with the mind? Should we admit the distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental dogmas?

(1) Rationalists deny the existence of Divine supernatural revelation, and consequently of religious dogmas. A certain school of mystics has taught that what Christ inaugurated in the world was "a new life". The "Modernist" theory by reason of its recent condemnation calls for fuller treatment. There are different shades of opinion among Modernists. Some of them do not, apparently, deny all intellectual value to dogma (cf. Le Roy, "Dogme et Critique"). Dogma, like revelation, they say, is expressed in terms of action. Thus when the Son of (God is said "to have come down from heaven", according to all theologians He did not come down, as bodies descend or as angels are conceived to pass from place to place, but the hypostatic union is described in terms of action. So when we profess our faith in God the Father, we mean, according to M. Le Roy, that we have to act towards God as sons; but neither the fatherhood of God, nor the other dogmas of faith, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of Christ, etc. imply of necessity any objective intellectual conception of fatherhood, Trinity, Resurrection, etc., or convey any idea to the mind. According to other writers, God has addressed no revelation to the human mind. Revelation, they say, began as a consciousness of right and wrong -- and the evolution or development of revelation was but the progressive development of the religious sense until it reached its highest level, thus far, in the modern liberal and democratic State. Then, according to these writers, the dogmas of faith, considered as dogmas, have no meaning for the mind, we need not believe them mentally; we may reject them -- it is enough if we employ them as guides for our actions. (See Modernism.) Over against this doctrine the Church teaches that God has made a revelation to the human mind. There are, no doubt, relative Divine attributes, and some of the dogmas of faith may be expressed under the symbolism of action, but they also convey to the human mind a meaning distinct from action. The fatherhood of God may imply that we should act towards Him as children towards a father -- but it also conveys to the mind definite analogical conceptions of our God and Creator. And there are truths, such as the Trinity, the Resurrection of Christ, His Ascension, etc. which are absolute objective facts, and which could be believed even if their practical consequences were ignored or were deemed of little value. The dogmas of the Church, such as the existence of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of Christ, the sacraments, a future judgment, etc. have an objective reality and are facts as really and truly as it a fact that Augustus was Emperor of the Romans, and that George Washington was first President of the United States.

(2) Abstracting from the Church's definition, we are bound to render to God the homage of our assent to revealed truth once we are satisfied that He has spoken. Even atheists admit, hypothetically, that if there be an infinite Being distinct from the world, we should pay Him the homage of believing His Divine word.

(3) Hence it is not permissible to distinguish revealed truths as fundamental and non-fundamental in the sense that some truths, though known to have been revealed by God, may be lawfully denied. But while we should believe, at least implicitly, every truth attested by the word of God, we are free to admit that some are in themselves more important than others, more necessary than others, and that an explicit knowledge of some is necessary while an implicit faith in others is sufficient.

IV. DOGMA AND THE CHURCH

Revealed truths become formally dogmas when defined or proposed by the Church. There is considerable hostility, in modem times, to dogmatic religion when considered as a body of truths defined by the Church, and still more when considered as defined by the pope. The theory of dogma which is here expounded depends for its acceptance on the doctrine of the infallible teaching office of the Church and of the Roman pontiff. It will be sufficient to notice the following points, (1) the reasonableness of the definition of dogma; (2) the immutability of dogma; (3) the necessity for Church unity of belief in dogma (4) the inconveniences which are alleged to be associated with the definition of dogma.

(1) Against the theory of interpretation of Scripture by private judgement, Catholics regard as absolutely unacceptable the view that God revealed a body of truths to the world and appointed no official teacher of revealed truth, no authoritative judge of controversy; this view is as unreasonable as would be the notion that the civil legislature makes laws, and then commits to individual private judgment the right and the duty of interpreting the laws and deciding controversies. The Church and the supreme pontiff are endowed by God with the privilege of infallibility in discharge of the duty of universal teacher in the sphere of faith and morals; hence we have an infallible testimony that the dogmas defined and delivered to us by the Church are the truths contained in Divine revelation.

(2) The dogmas of the Church are immutable. Modernists hold that religious dogmas, as such, have no intellectual meaning, that we are not bound to believe them mentally, that they may be all false, that it is sufficient if we use them a guides to action; and accordingly they teach that dogmas are not immutable, that they should be changed when the spirit of the age is opposed to them, when they lose their value as rules for a liberal religious life. But in the Catholic doctrine that Divine revelation is addressed to the human mind and expresses real objective truth, dogmas are immutable Divine truths. It is an immutable truth for all time that Augustus was Emperor of Rome and George Washington first President of the United States. So according to Catholic belief, these are and will be for all time immutable truths -- that there are three Persons in God, that Christ died for us, that He arose from the dead, that He founded the Church, that He instituted the sacraments. We may distinguish between the truths themselves and the language in which they are expressed. The full meaning of certain revealed truths has been only gradually brought out; the truths will always remain. Language may change or may receive a new meaning; but we can always learn what meaning was attached to particular words in the past.

(3) We are bound to believe revealed truths irrespective of their definition by the Church, if we are satisfied that God has revealed them. When they are proposed or defined by the Church, and thus become dogmas, we are bound to believe them in order to maintain the bond of faith. (See Heresy).

(4) Finally, Catholics do not admit that, as is sometimes alleged, dogmas are the arbitrary creations of ecclesiastical authority, that they are multiplied at will, that they are devices for keeping the ignorant in subjection, that they are obstacles to conversions. Some of these are points of controversy which cannot be settled without reference to more fundamental questions. Dogmatic definitions would be arbitrary if there were no Divinely instituted infallible teaching office in the Church; but if, as Catholics maintain, God has established in His Church an infallible office, dogmatic definitions cannot be considered arbitrary. The same Divine Providence which preserves the Church from error will preserve her from inordinate multiplication of dogmas. She cannot define arbitrarily. We need only observe the life of the Church or of the Roman pontiffs to see that dogmas are not multiplied inordinately. And as dogmatic definitions are but the authentic interpretation and declaration of the meaning of Divine revelation, they cannot be considered devices for keeping the ignorant in subjection, or reasonable obstacles to conversions, on the contrary, the authoritative definition of truth and condemnation of error, are powerful arguments leading to the Church those who seek the truth earnestly.

V. DOGMA AND RELIGION

It is sometimes charged that in the Catholic Church, in consequence of its dogmas, religious life consists merely in speculative beliefs and external sacramental formalities. It is a strange charge, arising from prejudice or from lack of acquaintance with Catholic life. Religious life in conventual and monastic establishments is surely not a merely external formality. The external religious exercises of the ordinary Catholic layman, such as public prayer, confession, Holy Communion, etc. suppose careful and serious internal self-examination and self-regulation, and various other acts of internal religion. We need only to observe the public civic life of Catholics, their philanthropic works, their schools, hospitals, orphanages, charitable organizations, to be convinced that dogmatic religion does not degenerate into mere external formalities. On the contrary, in non-Catholic Christian bodies a general decay of supernatural Christian life follows the dissolution of dogmatic religion. Were the dogmatic system of the Catholic Church, with its authoritative infallible head, done away with, the various systems of private judgment would not save the world from relapsing into and following pagan ideals. Dogmatic belief is not the be-all and end-all of Catholic life; but the Catholic serves God, honours the Trinity, loves Christ, obeys the Church, frequents the sacraments, assists at Mass, observes the Commandments, because he believes mentally in God, in the Trinity, in the Divinity of Christ, in the Church, in the sacraments and the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the duty of keeping the Commandments, and he believes in them as objective immutable truths.

VI. DOGMA AND SCIENCE

But, it is objected, dogma checks investigation, antagonizes independence of thought, and makes scientific theology impossible. This difficulty may be supposed to be put by Protestants or by unbelievers. We will consider it from both points of view.

(1) Beyond scientific investigation and freedom of thought Catholics recognize the guiding influence of dogmatic beliefs. But Protestants also profess to adhere to certain great dogmatic truths which are supposed to impede scientific investigation and to conflict with the findings of modern science. Old difficulties against the existence of God or its demonstrability, against the dogma of Creation, miracles, the human soul, and supernatural religion have been dressed in a new garb and urged by a modern school of scientists principally from the discoveries in geology, paleontology, biology, astronomy, comparative anatomy, and physiology. But Protestants, no less than Catholics, profess to believe in God, in the Creation, in the soul, in the Incarnation, in the possibility of miracles; they too, maintain that there can be no discord between the true conclusions of science and the dogmas of the Christian religion rightly understood. Protestants, therefore, cannot consistently complain that Catholic dogmas impede scientific investigation. But it is urged that in the Catholic system beliefs are not determined by private judgment, behind the dogmas of the Church there is the living bulwark of her episcopate. True, behind dogmatic beliefs Catholics recognize ecclesiastical authority; but this puts no further restraint on intellectual freedom -- it only raises the question as to the constitution of the Church. Catholics do not believe that God revealed a body of truths to mankind and appointed no living authority to unfold, to teach, to safeguard that body of Divine truths, to decide controversies; but the authority of the episcopate under the supreme pontiff to control intellectual activity is correlative with, and arises from their authority to teach supernatural truth. The existence of judges and magistrates does not extend the range of our civil laws -- they are rather a living authority to interpret and apply the laws. Similarly, episcopal authority has for its range the truth of revelation, and it prohibits only what is inconsistent with the full scope of that truth.

(2) In discussing the question with unbelievers we note that science is "the observation and classification, or co-ordination, of the individual facts or phenomena of nature". Now a Catholic is absolutely free in the prosecution of scientific research according to the terms of this definition. There is no prohibition or restriction on Catholics in regard to the observation and co-ordination of the phenomena of Nature. But some scientists do not confine themselves to science as defined by themselves. They propound theories often unwarranted by experimental observation. One will maintain as a "scientific" truth that there is no God, or that His existence is unknowable -- another that the world has not been created; another will deny in the name of "science" the existence of the soul; another, the possibility of supernatural revelation. Surely these denials are not warranted by scientific methods. Catholic dogma and ecclesiastical authority limit intellectual activity only so far as may be necessary for safeguarding the truths of revelation. If non-believing scientists in their study of Catholicism would apply the scientific method, which consists in observing, comparing, making hypotheses, and perhaps formulating scientific conclusions, they would readily see that dogmatic belief in no way interferes with the legitimate freedom of the Catholic in scientific research, the discharge of civic duty, or any other form of activity that makes for true enlightenment and progress. The service rendered by Catholics in every department of learning and of social endeavour, is a fact which no amount of theorizing against dogma can set aside. (See Faith, Infallibility, Revelation, Science, Truth.)

Acta et Decreta Concilii Vaticani in Coll. Lac. (Freiburg im Br., 1870-90), VII; SUAREZ, Opera Omnia: De Fide Theologicâ; DE LUGO, Pera: De fide; VACANT, Etudes théologiques sur les constitutions du concile du Vatican (Paris, 1895); GRANDERATH, Constitutiones dogmaticae Sacrosancti Ecumenici Concilii Vaticani ex ipsis ejus actis explicatae atque illustratae (Freiburg im Br., 1892); SCHEEBEN, Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik (Freiburg im Br., 1873); SCHWANE, Dogmengeschichte (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1895); MAZZELLA, De Virtutibus Infusis (Rome, 1884); BILLOT, Tractatus de Ecclesiâ Christi (Rome, 1903); IDEM, De Virtutibus Infusis (Rome, 1905); NEWMAN, Idea of a University (London, 1899).

DANIEL COGHLAN

Dogmatic Facts

(1) Definition

By a dogmatic fact, in wider sense, is meant any fact connected with a dogma and on which the application of the dogma to a particular case depends. The following questions involve dogmatic facts in the wider sense: Is Pius X, for instance, really and truly Roman Pontiff [1909], duly elected and recognized by the Universal Church? This is connected with dogma, for it is a dogma of faith that every pontiff duly elected and recognized by the universal Church is a successor of Peter. Again, was this or that council ecumenical? This, too, is connected with dogma, for every ecumenical council is endowed with infallibility and jurisdiction over the Universal Church. The question also whether canonized saints really die in the odour of sanctity is connected with dogma, for every one who dies in the odour of sanctity is saved. In the stricter sense the term dogmatic fact is confined to books and spoken discourses, and its meaning will be explained by a reference to the condemnation by Innocent X of five propositions taken from the posthumous book of Jansenius, entitled "Augustinus". It might be asked, for example, whether the pope could define that Jansenius really was the author of the book entitled "Augustinus". It is conceded that he could not. He may speak of it as the work of Jansenius, because, in general repute, at least, it was regarded as the work of Jansenius. The precise authorship of a book is called a personal fact. The question turned on the doctrine of the book. The Jansenists admitted that the doctrine enunciated In the condemned propositions was heretical; but they maintained that the condemned doctrine was not taught in the "Augustinus". This brings us to what are called "particular facts of doctrine". Thus it is a fact that God exists, and that there are Three Persons in God; here the same thing is fact and dogma. The Jansenists admitted that the pope is competent to deal with particular facts of doctrine, but not to determine the meaning of a book. The controversy was then carried to the meaning of the book. Now it is conceded that the pope cannot define the purely internal, subjective, perhaps singular meaning, which an author might attach to his words. But the pope, in certain cases, can determine the meaning of a book judged by the general laws of interpretation. And when a book or propositions from a book are condemned, "in the sense of the author", they are condemned in the sense in which the book or propositions would be understood when interpreted according to the ordinary laws of language. The same formula may be condemned in one author and not in another, because, interpreted by the context and general argument of the author, it may be unorthodox in one case and not in another. In the strict sense, therefore, a dogmatic fact may be defined as "the orthodox or heterodox meaning of a book or proposition"; or as a "fact that is so connected with dogma that a knowledge of the fact is necessary for teaching and conserving sound doctrine". When we say that a book contains unorthodox doctrine, we convey that a certain doctrine is unorthodox; here we have close connection between fact and dogma.

(2) The Church and Dogmatic Facts

Jansenists distinguished between "fact" and "dogma". They held that the Church is infallible in defining revealed truth and in condemning errors opposed to revealed truth; but that the Church is not infallible in defining facts which are not contained in Divine revelation, and consequently that the Church was not infallible in declaring that a particular doctrine, in a particular sense, was found in the "Augustinus" of Jansenius. This would confine the infallible teaching of the Church to mere abstract doctrines, a view that cannot be accepted. Theologians are unanimous in teaching that the Church, or the pope, is infallible, not only in defining what is formally contained in Divine revelation, but also in defining virtually revealed truths, or generally in all definitions and condemnations which are necessary for safe-guarding the body of revealed truth. Whether it is to be regarded as a defined doctrine, as a doctrine de fide, that the Church is infallible in definitions about dogmatic facts, is disputed among theologians. The reason of this difference in opinion will appear below (3). The Church, in all ages, has exercised the right of pronouncing with authority on dogmatic facts; and this right is essential to her teaching office. She has always claimed the right of defining that the doctrine of heretics, in the sense in which it is contained in their books, or in their discourses, is heretical; that the doctrine of an orthodox writer, in the sense in which it is contained in his writings, is orthodox. We can scarcely imagine a theory like that of the Jansenists advanced within the sphere of the civil authority. We can scarcely conceive it to be held that a judge and a jury may pronounce on an abstract proposition of libel, but cannot find that a particular paragraph in a book or newspaper is libellous in the sense in which it is written. If the Church could not define the orthodox or unorthodox sense of books, sermons, conferences, and discourses generally, she might still be infallible in regard to abstract doctrine, but she could not fulfil her task as practical teacher of humanity, not protect her children from actual concrete dangers to their faith and morals.

(3) Faith and Dogmatic Facts

The more extreme Jansenists, distinguishing between dogma and fact, taught that the dogma is the proper object of faith but that to the definition of fact only respectful silence is due. They refused to subscribe the formula of the condemnation of Jansenism, or would subscribe only with a qualification, on the ground that subscription implied internal assent and acquiescence. The less extreme party, though limiting the Church's infallibility to the question of dogma, thought that the formula might be signed absolutely and without qualification, on the ground that, by general usage, subscription implied assent to the dogma, but, in relation to the fact, only external reverence. But the definitions of dogmatic facts demand real internal assent; though about the nature of the assent and its relation to faith theologians are not unanimous. Some theologians hold that definitions of dogmatic facts, and especially of dogmatic facts in the wider acceptation of the term, are believed by Divine faith. For instance, the proposition, "every pope duly elected is the successor of Peter", is formally revealed. Then, say these theologians, the proposition, "Pius X has been duly elected pope", only shows that Pius X is included in the general revealed proposition that "every pope duly elected is the successor of Peter". And they conclude that the proposition, "Pius X is successor to Peter", is a formally revealed proposition; that it is believed by Divine faith; that it is a doctrine of faith, de fide; that the Church, or the pope, is infallible in defining such doctrines. Other theologians hold that the definitions of dogmatic facts, in the wider and stricter acceptation, are received, not by Divine faith, but by ecclesiastical faith, which some call mediate Divine faith. They hold that in such syllogisms as this: "Every duly elected pontiff is Peter's successor; but Pius X, for example, is a duly elected pontiff; therefore he is a successor of Peter", the conclusion is not formally revealed by God, but is inferred from a revealed and an unrevealed proposition, and that consequently it is believed, not by Divine, but by ecclesiastical faith. It would then also be held that it has not been formally defined de fide that the Church is infallible in the definition of dogmatic facts. It would be said technically to be theologically certain that the Church is infallible in these definitions; and this infallibility cannot lawfully be questioned. That all are bound to give internal assent to Church definitions of dogmatic facts is evident from the correlative duties of teacher and persons taught. As it belongs to the duty of supreme pastor to define the meaning of a book or proposition, correlatively it is the duty of the subjects who are taught to accept this meaning.

DANIEL COGHLAN

Jean Dolbeau

Recollect friar, born in the Province of Anjou, France, 12 March, 1586; died at Orléans, 9 June, 1652. He entered the order at the age of nineteen at Balmette, near Angers, and was one of the four Recollects who were the first missionaries of Canada. He landed at Quebec in May, 1615, and celebrated the first Mass ever said there. He became commissionary provincial of the mission in 1618 and preached the first jubilee accorded to Canada. This zealous missionary built the first monastery of the Recollects at Quebec in 1620. He returned to France in 1625, taking with him a young Indian boy who was later baptized at Angers. Endowed with many striking qualities, Father Dolbeau was remarkable for extraordinary spiritual insight and profound humility. He was successively master of novices, guardian, definitor, and provincial delegate at the general chapter of the order held in Spain in 1633. He died in the forty-seventh year of his religious life.

ODORIC M. JOUVE

Carlo Dolci

Painter, born in Florence, Italy, 25 May, 1616; died 17 January, 1686. The grandson of a painter, he seems to have inherited a talent for art. He studied under J. Vignali, and when only eleven years old he attracted attention by the excellence of his work, notably a figure of St. John and a head of the Infant Jesus. The precocious youth made a carefully-finished picture of his mother, and thereafter was kept busy filling the numerous commissions he received in Florence, a city he seldom left during his long life, which he devoted to art. Dolci was one of the few masters whose pictures were eagerly sought for by his countrymen during his lifetime. He was very pious and painted religious works exclusively. It is recorded that in every Passion week he painted a picture of the Saviour. He limited his brush to heads -- usually of Christ and the Virgin -- and seldom undertook a large-sized canvas. He is celebrated for the soft, gentle, and tender expression of his faces, the transparency of his colour, the excellent management of chiaroscuro, and the careful and ivory-like finish of his pictures. The simplicity and tranquillity on the faces of his paintings of Christ and the Virgin seem little short of inspired. Hinds calls him mawkish and affected; but Dolci was the last of the Florentine School, the last real "master of the Renaissance"; and as decadent sweetness permeated all Italian art, his pictures but reflected the dominant character of the close of the seventeenth century. Patient and slow, he painted pictures that are perfectly finished in every detail. His masterpiece (1646) is "St. Andrew praying before his Crucifixion" (Pitti Gallery, Florence). It is one of the few works where his figures, always well drawn and standing out in beautiful relief, are life-size. Next in excellence to this is the "St. John writing his Gospel" (Berlin). His "Mater Dolorosa" called "Madonna del Dito" (of the thumb) is known throughout the civilized world because of its many reproductions. In 1662 Dolci saw with chagrin Giordano accomplish in a few hours what would have taken him weeks, and it is said he was thereupon seized with melancholy, which ultimately led to his death. Loma, Mancini, Mariani, and Agnese Dolci (his daughter) were a few of his pupils and imitators. Contemporary copyists have filled European collections with spurious Dolcis. Angese Dolci, who died the same year as her father, not only made marvellous copies of the master's pictures, but was herself an excellent painter. Her "Consecration of the Bread and Wine" is in the Louvre. Other works by him are: "Virgin and Child", National Gallery, London; "The Saviour seated with Saints", Florence; "Madonna and Child", Borghese Gallery, Rome.

LEIGH HUNT

Doliche

A titular see of Commagene (Augusto-Euphratesia). It was a small city on the road from Germanicia to Zeugma (Ptolemy, V, 15, 10; Itiner. Anton., 184, 189, 191, 194; Tab. Peuting.), famous for its temple of Zeus Dolichenus; it struck its own coins from Marcus Aurelius to Caracalla. The ruins stand at Tell Dülük, three miles northwest of Aintab, in the vilayet of Aleppo. Doliche was at an early date an episcopal see suffragan of Hierapolis (Mabboug, Membidj). Lequien (Or. Christ., II, 937) mentions eight Greek bishops: Archelaus, present at Nicaea in 325, and at Antioch in 341; Olympius at Sardica in 344; Cyrion at Seleucia in 359; Maris at Constantinople in 381; Abibus, a Nestorian, in 431, deposed in 434; Athanasius, his successor; Timothy, a correspondent of Theodoret, present at Antioch in 444 and at Chalcedon in 451; Philoxenus, a nephew of the celebrated Philoxenus of Hierapolis, deposed as a Severian in 518, reinstated in 533 (Brooks, The sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, London, 1904, II, 89, 90, 345-350, 352). The see figures in the first "Notitia Episcopatuum" ed. Parthey, about 840. At a later time Doliche took the place of Hierapolis as metropolis (Vailhé, in Echos d'Orient, X, 94 sqq. and 367 sqq.). For a list of fourteen Jacobite Bishops of Doliche (eighth to ninth century), see "Revue de l'Orient chrétien", VI, 195.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger

A historian and theologian, born at Bamberg, Bavaria, 28 February, 1799; died at Munich, 10 January, 1890.

FAMILY AND EDUCATION

Döllinger's father was a professor of medicine in the University of Bamberg, and his son was influenced, in an unusual degree, by the family traditions and his whole environment. The medical faculty of the University of Bamberg owed its foundation to his grandfather, whose son, the father of Ignaz (as Döllinger was usually called), became regular professor of medicine in the same university in 1794 but in 1803 was called to Wurzburg. It was only natural that amid surroundings predominantly academic the youthful Ignaz should acquire a strong love of books, the best of which were then written in French, which language the future historian of the Church learned from his father. In the Gymnasium he acquired a knowledge of Italian. A Benedictine monk taught him English privately and he learned Spanish at the university. An orderly acquisition of learning and the full development of all his rich gifts would have led to extraordinary achievements. He had also sufficient means to satisfy any reasonable wishes for foreign travel and the purchase of books. All these circumstances, doubtless, combined to render his mind particularly receptive; at the same time the multitude of impressions daily made on the young student led him to outline a plan of studies by far too comprehensive.

On entering the University of Wurzburg at the age of sixteen, he took up at once history, philosophy, philology and the natural sciences. In this choice there is already evident a certain mental irregularity the more remarkable if we recall what he said, two years later, apropos of his choice of a vocation, viz., that, "no professor in the faculty of philosophy had been able to attract him to his particular science". The conversion of such men as Eckhart, Werner, Schlegel, Stolberg, and Winkelmann turned his thoughts to theology, which he took up in 1818, but without abandoning botany, mineralogy, and entomology, to which studies he continued for many years to devote considerable time. We quote from Friedrich the following noteworthy utterance of Döllinger: "To most other students theology was only a means to the end. To me, on the contrary, theology, or science in general based on theology, was the end, the choice of a vocation only the means." During his student days he seldom attended the regular lectures on theology but he was assiduous at the lectures in the faculty of philosophy and law; privately, however, he read many works on theology. His studies were better regulated when in 1820 he entered the ecclesiastical seminary at Bamberg and followed the theological courses given at the Iyceum. The year and a half spent in this manner made up, but not sufflciently, for the previous lack of a systematic training in theology. He was ordained priest 22 April, 1822, spent the summer at his home, and in November, was appointed chaplain at Markscheinfeldt in Middle Franconia. Despite the profound grasp of dogma and moral theology that his works at times exhibit, his career gives evidence enough that he never took the pains to round out satisfactorily the insufficiency of his early training in theology. The elder Döllinger had hoped to see his son follow an academic career and opposed his choice of the priesthood; among the reasons for his opposition was the conviction, openly expressed (and then prevalent enough among the German clergy), that for physiological reasons a celibate life was impossible.

CAREER

Döllinger's father soon obtained (November, 1823) for him a place as professor of canon law and church history in the lyceum of Aschaffenburg. It was here that in 1826 he published his first work "Die Eucharistie in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten" an eloquent and solid treatise, still much appreciated. It obtained for him from the theological faculty of the Bavarian University of Landshut the title of Doctor of Theology in absentiâ. In the same year he was called to Munich as professor extraordinary of canon law and church history, and in 1827 was made professor in ordinary. In 1839 the king gave him a canonry in the royal chapel (Hofkollegiatstift) of St. Cajetan at Munich, and on 1 Jan 1847, he was made mitred provost or head of that body of canons. In the same year he was dismissed from his chair, in punishment of his protest as representative of the university on the Bavarian Landtag, to which he had been appointed in 1844, against the dismissal of several university professors. But in 1848 he was chosen representative to the Frankfort Parliament and remained in attendance until the middle of 1849. Then followed (24 Dec., 1849, according to some authorities 1 Jan., 1850) his reappointment as professor, which office he held until 18 April, 1871, when Archbishop von Scherr publicly excommunicated him. Thereupon he laid down his ecclesiastical charges, recognized the binding force of his excommunication and, though he held his professorate another year, taught only a course of modern history. In 1868 King Louis II of Bavaria had appointed him royal councillor, and maintained him in his office as provost of St. Cajetan, even after his excommunication; practically, this meant only the continuance to him of the revenue of the position. Döllinger received in 1873 another evidence of the royal favour when, on the death of the famous chemist Liebig, he was named by the king to the presidency of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences and general conservator of the scientific collections of the State. As early as 1837 he had been made member extraordinary of the Academy, in 1843 a regular member, and from 1860 was secretary of its historical section.

Many attempts were made, by ecclesiastics and laymen, to induce Döllinger to return to the Church. The personal conviction of the latter may be read in his correspondence (edited by Friedrich, Munich, 1899-1901) with Archbishop Steichele and the nuncio Monsignor Ruffo-Scilla. In 1886 and 1887 both of these prelates together with Bishop von Hefele of Rottenburg besought Döllinger to abandon his Old-Catholic attitude and be reconciled with the Church. His response to the archbishop contained these words "Ought I (in obedience to your suggestion) to appear before the Eternal Judge, my conscience burdened with a double perjury?" At the end of his letter to the nuncio he said: "I think that what I have written so far will suffice to make clear to you that with such convictions one may stand even on the threshold of eternity in a condition of inner peace and spiritual calm". He died aged ninety-one, still outside the communion of Church.

LIFE AND WRITINGS

It was at Munich that Döllinger began his life-work. Formally, he was professor of canon law and ecclesiastical history, but was soon burdened with the teaching of dogma and New Testament exegesis, a task to which a weaker or inferior mind would not have proved equal. He declined in 1829, a call to Breslau, although King Louis I heartiiy wished him out of Bavaria; he also refused a later call to Freiburg in the Breisgau. He was offered in 1839, a professorship at an English college, but preferred to remain in Munich. To facilitate the coming of Johann Adam Mohler from Tubingen to Munich (1835), he gave over to him the courses of ecclesiastical history and New Testament exegesis, and when Mohler died (12 April, 1838) he collected a number of essays of this great theologian which for the most part were already in print but were widely scattered, and published them on two volumes (1839) under the title "Gesammelte Schriften und Aufsätze". While Mohler taught at Munich, Döllinger lectured on the history of dogma (Historische Dogmatik). At the request of Abel, Minister of the Interior, Döllinger began in 1838, a course of lectures in the Faculty of Philosophy on the philosophy of religion in opposition to the teaching of the honorary professor Von Baader, the theosophist, and of Schelling. He continued, however, to lecture on dogma and ecclesiastical history. From November, 1846 to February, 1848 Bavarian public affairs were disturbed by the royal attachment to Lola Montez, a Spanish ballerina; the Abel ministry was dismissed, and professors Lasaulx, Moy, Urtsr, Phillips, Höfler and Deutinger either dismissed or reprimanded; Doilinzer, finally as stated above, was removed from his office. After his restoration in 1860 he continued to the end as professor of church history. In 1862 he has made knight of the Order of Maximilian for science and art.

Apart from the aforesaid officers of canon and provost, Döllinger held but one other ecclesiastical office in Munich. After the conflict concerning mixed marriages (1832), he was made defensor matrimonii in the matrimonial court of first instance, later in that of second instance, which office he held until 1862. His circle of friends frorn the beginning quite extensive; the physicians and professors of the natural sciences who frequented his father's house were themselves men of distinction. As a student he formed the acquantance of the poet, Graf Voll Platen, and of Victor Aimé Huber. Later Platen wished to study Sanskrit with Döllinger, and visited him twice at Marktscheinfeld. In the ecclesiastical seminary of Bamberg he met Prince Alexander van Hohenlohe (q.v.), of whose miraculous cures he said later: "Cures there were, but such as often happen in the history of the Church; the deep stirring of the emotions suffices easily enough to explain them", a remark that fails to account for the presence of deep emotions in the absent sick. On a visit to Platen at Erlangen, in 1822, he met Pfaff, Schubert, and Schelling, the last a friend of his father. In his early days at Munich he was much in the company of the above-mentioned philosopher, Franz von Baader. When in 1827, the famous Joseph Görres came to Munich as professor of history, there formed about him at once a sympathetic circle of scholars, among them the youthful Döllinger. Döllinger's relations with Lamennais, more particularly with Count Montalembert, gave occasion in 1832 to a violent attack in the Bavarian Parliament on Gorres and his friends. Lamennais at that time contemplated the establishment at Munich of a house of studies for young Frenchmen (Oeuvre des études allemandes), who might thus come under the influence of Gorres, Baader, and others, and on their return to France stand manfully for the defence of the Church. In the meantime Döllinger had met Andreas Räss, the founder (1821) of "Der Katholik" (still published at Mainz), who in 1828 was rector of the ecclesiastical seminary at Strasburg as well as professor of dogma and homiletics; with Döllinger he projected various literary enterprises which, through pressure of other work, were never realized.

At this time Monsignor Wiseman, later Cardinal, and Archbishop of Westminster, then professor at the Roman University (Sapienza) and rector of the English College, saw the necessity of strenghtening Catholicism in the development of its new opportunities in England, and for this reason was minded to effect closer relations with the learned clergy of Germany. Döllinger seemed to him the proper mediator; he therefore visited Munich in 1835, made the acquaintance of the distinguished professor, and spoke with him of his hopes and plans. Wiseman, already well known in Europe by his "Horae Syriae" arouse in Döllinger so deep an interest, that the next year the latter visited England. His biographer, Friedrich, describes the result of this visit as follows: "Döllinger had a life-long hatred for bureaucracy both in the Church and State; the large independence, therefore, of English public life delighted him and filled him with an admiration that was often excessive. Thenceforth he remained always in close touch with England, kept constantly in his home, and at considerable sacrifice, a number of young English students, and directed the studies of others whom he could not keep under his own roof". In 1850 the youthful Sir John Emerich Edward Acton (q.v.) entered his house as a student, to become later his intimate friend. Later, as John Lord Acton and Regius Professor of modern history at Cambridge he remained in close touch with the Old Catholics, though he never formally severed his connection with the Church. We do not as yet possess accurate knowledge concerning Acton's share in the work known as "Letters from Rome" concerning the Vatican Council (Römische Briefe vom Konzil) published by Döllinger in the Augsburg "Allgemeine Zeitung".

As a rule Döllinger observed with his pupils a strict academic dignity and reserve; among the few whom he treated as intimate friends Acton was easily the foremost. Among those who in this early period exerted the greatest influence over Döllinger was Karl Ernest Jarcke, founder and editor (since 1832) of the Berlin "Politische Woehenblatter", confidant of Metternich, and a frequent visitor to the Bavarian capital. In 1838 came the foundation of the "Historisch-politische Blätter" by Guido Görres, Phillips, and Jarcke; the new organ soon greatly augmented the influence of Gorres and his circle of friends, the most loyal and earnest of whom at this time was Döllinger.

The dispute over the question of mixed marriages in Prussia, known as the Kölner Streit (1831), followed close upon that in Bavaria (1831); both were fought out dramatically, and brought Döllinger and his Munich friends to the front as vigorous defenders of Catholic rights. The first estrangement of Döllinger from Görres and his friends came about through the publication of an important manual of canon law by Philips (from 1834 to 1847 professor of canon law at Munich). To Döllinger it seemed that the latter emphasized excessively the extent of the papal prerogative. Nevertheless, he continued for a decade to collaborate on the "Historisch-politische Blatter"; it was only slowly and almost imperceptibly that the change in his opinions came about. Gradually, owing to his opposition to the Jesuits and particulrly to the Roman Curia, he sought and found newer friends in Liberal circles. As member of the Frankfort Parliament (1848) he sat with the Right, among men like Radowitz, Lichnowsky, Schwerin, Vincke, and others, he also belonged to the Club "Zum steinernen Haus".

The change that had come about in Döllinger's views during the preceding years may best be measured by the fact that his colleagues in Frankfort obtained his consent to the following plan. General von Radowitz, in the name of the Catholic deputies, was to make this declaration in Parliament: "The orders, including the Jesuit Order, are not a part of the living organism of the Catholic Church; the Jesuit Order is no wise necessary in Germany; the German episcopate and the German clergy do not need its help to fulfil their obligations; German learning [die deutsche Wissenoschaft] needs no aid of this nature. The possible advantages for the Catholic Church accruing from the co-operation of the Jesuit Order should be greatly outweighed by the disturbances and perils that its presence would create. If it were proposed to introduce the Jesuits into any Geman State, moved the higher interests of the Catholic Church, we would protest most decidedly againt the execution of any such plan".

The relations of Döllinger with the German episcopate were frequent, particularly after the meeting of the German and Austrian prelates at Würzburg (22 Oct to 16 Nov., 1848). His report concerning the national church and national synods as submitted to this important assembly, aroused deep interest, was received with approval in many episcopal circles, and assured him the leadership in the acute ecclesiastico-political discussions then impending. Between 1852 and 1854 he visited Northern and Central Italy, and in 1857 Rome. Apart from his learned researches on these occasions, he profited by these journeys to: strengthen his existing relations with numerous Italians, ecclesiastics and laymen, also to new aquaintances and friendships. While Döllinger sought in every way to retain the favour of King Maximilian II, the cleft between him and his former friends as well as his own past continued to widen. For a while the farnous professor seemed to stand almost alone, particularly after the stormy scenes of the Munich congress of Catholic savants (28 sept. to 1 oct., 1863). Daniel Bonifatius von Haneberg, Abbot of St. Boniface in Munich, opened this Congress of eighty-four members mostly German theologians, on which occasion Döllinger delivered his famous discourse, "Die Vergangenheit und Gegervart der katholischen Theologie" (The Past and Present of Catholic Theology). Many of those present, among them Haneberg, saw with sorrow that they could not follows Döllinger along the new path he was taking. He held no longer to the universal idea of Catholicism as a world-religion; in its place, nourished by the court atmosphere he loved so well, arose a strictly nationalistic concept of the catholic Church. All ecclesiastical measures he henceforth criticized from the narrow angle of Gallicanism, and ridiculed in anonymous articles and other writings. He was daily in closer communion with the principal Bavarian statesmen, and amid these relations conceived an idea of the Church's office which in the end could not be other than un-Catholic. It may be noted here that his intimacy with the philosopher Johann Huber, a disciple of Schelling, had attracted attention long before this. Nevertheless (and it was a sign of the strong tension of those days and the mental temper of many) a number of German bishops still held to Döllinger, although they had long since parted company with Joseph Hubert Reinkens, professor of church history at Breslau and later first bishop of the Old Catholics. It was not until 18 July, 1870, when the dogma of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed at Rome, that there was a sharp division in the ranks of German Catholics. This compelled Döllinger henceforth to seek friends and allies exclusively among the leaders of the Kulturkampf and the Old Catholics, as also among anti-Catholic statesmen and princes.

Döllinger, as is well known, wrote much and admirably, and his writings exhibit, with a rare fidelity, every phase of his mental conflict. He was still a young man when his profound learning and brilliant diction, coupled with an unusal ease and rapidity in the critical treatment of whatever historical thesis lay before him, earned for him an international reputation. He lacked, however, the methodical training necessary for the scientific editing of original texts and documents, in which respect his deficiencies were occasionally only too evident. He was not content with bare investigation of the fact, and problems of Christian antiquity, or of modieval and modern but sought always a satisfactory solution for the difficulties that confronted the student. His diction was always charming whether the subject were one demanding strictly scientific and well-ordered narrative or the light and rapid style called for by the pressing, but ephemeral, needs of the hour. He was likewise skillful as a public speaker, not only when delivering a carefully prepared discourse but also when called on for an extemporaneous address. A typical example of his ability in this respect was his extempore discourse in St. Paul's Church, Frankfort, on Church and State, apropos of Article III of the fundamental articles (Grundreche) of the Constitution: several of the best speakers had preceded him, and, in order to closely follow their line of thought his whole address had to be extemporized; nevertheless, it was admitted by all that, both in form and logic, his address was by far the best delivered on that occasion. The admiration of his students, no doubt, was due in great measure to the beautiful diction in which he was wont to dress the facts of history.

The writings of Döllinger may be divided into purely scientific and political or ecclesiastico-political. They exhibit for the most part, however, a mutual interdependence and often complete one another. To avoid repetition it seems better to follow the chronological order. It is worthy of note that when writing anonymously his tone was frequently bitter, occasionally even violent, writing over his own name he usually avoided such extremes. His first work (1826) "Die Eucharistie in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten", has already been mentioned. ln 1828 he published the first volumes of Hortig's "Kirchengeschichte", from the Reformation to the end of the eighteenth century. He also wrote frequently at this time for "Eos", a new review founded by his friends, Baader and Görres; most of the articles dealt with contemporary subjects. According to Friedrich he also prepared "Umrisse zu Dante's Paradies von P. von Cornelius", i.e. an introduction to that writer's edition of Dante's "Paradiso". His journalistic activity, however, was far from pleasing to the ministerial councillor, Joseph Freiherr von Hormayr, a somewhat erratic but influential, person who so influenced the king that he wished Döllinger well out of Bavaria, as has been seen in the case of his call to Breslau.

In these years, also, he defended with vigour the matrimonial legislation of the Church, in connection with the "Mixed Marriages" conflict (1831) in the Upper House of the Bavarian Parliament, and he was author of an anonymous work "Ueber die gemischten Ehen"; at the same time he suggested as a means of avoiding all conflict, that the civil marriage be separated from the religious ceremony. Meanwhile he continued to collect the material for his scientific works. In 1833 and 1835 respectively he published the first and second parts of his "Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte" (to the end of seventh century). The next year (1836) he brought out the first volume, and in 1838 the first half of the second volume of his "Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte" (to the end of the fifteenth century). The essay "Muhammeds Religion, eine historische Betrachtung" was read before the Munich Academy about the time he published the aforesaid work on mixed marriages; early in 1838 he published his "Beurtheilung der Darlegung des geheimen Rathes Bunsen: eine Stimme zum Frieden". A long controversy with Professor Thiersch followed this entrance of Döllinger into the Prussian conflict over mixed marriages (Kölner Streit), his articles were printed in the Augsberg "Allgemeine zeitung" and are apparently his earliest contributions to the Journal which thirty-one years later he was to consummate his apostasy. Karl Von Abel, Minister of Interior, now asked him to publish a popular "Weltgeschichte" or universal history, from the Catholic point of view, also a manual of religion (Religionslehrbuch) for the gymnasia or high-schools; he began these works but, feeling himself unsuited to their composition, persuaded the minister to relieve him from the undertaking. Later on he undertook to explain his failure in the Parliament, his explanation, however, seems quite improbable, and may be looked on as either a meaningless piece of malice or a case of self-deception.

A royal order (1838) that compelled all soldiers to genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament was soon the cause of much friction; in 1843 the matter came before the Upper House, where representatives of the non-Catholic soldiers protested against the measure as contrary to liberty of conscience. Döllinger defended the king and the Government in an anonymous work entitled: "Die Frage der Kniebeugung der Protestanten von der religiösen und staatsrechtlichen Seite erwogen", wherein he treated the question from both the religious and politics point of view; this was followed by a long controversy with the Protestant deputy, Harless. In the meantime he was chosen by the University of Munich as its representative in the Bavarian Parliament, where he protested against the admission of the Jesuits and defended the emancipation of the Jews, both of which acts drew upon him the enmity of many. During this political agitation, and while Lola Montez still held the king infatuated, appeared the first volume of his great work "Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen im Umfange des lutherischen Bekenntnisses", i.e. on the origin, development, and consequences of the Reformation in Lutheran circles; the second volume appeared in 1847; the third in 1848. A second edition of the first volume was printed in 1851. This work unfortunately remained incomplete; Friedrich says that Döllinger's friends prevented him from publishing the corresponding three volumes, i.e. an account of the conditions within the Catholic Church in the same period. This work long exercised a powerful influence and still remains its value. Johannes Janssen (q.v.) was inspired by it to undertake the exhaustive studies which have done so much to destroy the traditional legends that so long did duty as a history of the Reformation.

The foolish attempt of some zealots to have the temporal power of the pope proclaimed a dogma (Dogmatisierung des Kirchenstaates) excited Döllinger to an extraordinary degree. He became firmly persued that theological science could be saved only by the German Catholic Church, not by the Catholic Church in Germany. By theological science he meant chiefly historical theology. All other ecclesiastical interests seemed to this great scholar quite subordinate. His aversion to the education of clergy in seminaries, later quite pronounced, was another result of this mental attitude, the trend of which he revealed on various occasions at the Frankfort Parliament, and in the above-mentioned report (1848) of the Wurzburg meeting of the German and Austrian bishops. Gradually he came to be looked upon as a Gallican, nor was this because of his frequently expressed and strong dislike of the Jesuits. Many persons, among them the best and most loyal supporters of the Church, looked henceforth with a certain anxiety on the course of Döllinger. It could not be said that the nuncios at Munich admired him unreservedly. On the other hand, throughout the ranks of the German and Autrian clergy there was still only a mediocre theological knowledge, the legacy of an earlier period of infidelity and rationalism, and the concept of Catholic doctrine and discipline differed widely from the true ecclesiastical ideal of both.

To understand fully the profound changes working in the mind of Döllinger during the critical years from 1847 to 1852 it is well to recall his discourses at the general meetings of the "Katholischer Verein" at Ratisbon (1849) and Linz (1850), also those in the Upper House of the Bavarian Parliament in St. Paul's at Frankfort, and at the meetings of the German hierarchy at Wurzburg (1849) and Freising (1850). To some extent, also, disappointment was responsible for his new mental attitude; his friends and admirers had tried in vain to obtain for him an important German see. It is worthy of note also that about 1855 the author of the work on the Reformation began gradually to modify his views to such an extent that eventually (in 1889) he wrote a panegyric on Protestantism.

The Greek patristic text entitled "Philosophoumena, or Refutation of all Heresies", discovered in 1842 and edited by Miller (Oxford, 1851), at once fascinated Döllinger, and he devoted to its study all the rich powers of his erudition, critical skill, and insight. In 1853 he published the result of his labours in "Hippolytus und Kallistus, oder die romische Kirche in der ersten Halfte des dritten Jahrhunderts", etc, a study of the Roman Church from 200 to 250, in reply to the interpretations of the "Philosophoumena" published by Bunsen, Wordsworth, Baur, and Gieseler. Despite the contrary arguments of De Rossi, Döllinger's opinion has prevailed, and it is now generally acknowledged that Hippolytus is the author of the work in question. Döllinger's essay in the "Historisch-Politische Blatter" (1853) entitled "Betrachtungen uber die Frage der Kaiserkronung", considerations on the imperial coronation, contributed not a little to deter Pius IX from crowning Napoleon III. Concerning the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception Döllinger exhibited a prejudiced mind and a rather superficial historical grasp of the question; the defects in his theological equipment were here most noticeable. Indeed, he was much less concerned with the doctrine itself than with the person who wished to proclaim it as a dogma of faith. It was also his first open protest against a pope who was soon to proclaim that Papal Infallibility which seemed to Döllinger an utterly intolerable doctrine, from his view-point of exaggerated esteem for historical theology.

The year 1857 was marked by the appearance of his "Heidenthum und Judenthum, Vorhalle des Christenthums" (Heathenism and Judaism, the Vestibule of Christianity), the first part of his long contemplated history of the Church, the second part followed in 1860 (2nd ed., 1868) as "Christenthum und Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung", dealing with the Apostolic period. The work, as he had planned, was never completed. Most of the abundant material he had collected for an exhaustive history of the papacy was afterwards utilized in an ephemeral journalistic way. The work itself he never undertook, and had he done so, it is possible that he would have come into conflict with the Holy See much sooner than he did.

In 1861 some of the principal ladies of Munich requested him to deliver a series of public discourses on Temporal Power; to this he acceded with pleasure, and the discourses given in the Royal Odeum were followed with deep attention by crowded audiences. His utterances, however, were so imprudent and so clearly inspired by Liberalism that in the midst of one of them papal nuncio, Monsignor Chigi, arose with indignation and left the hall. The impression made by these discourses on the Catholic world was painful in the extreme. Döllinger himself was deeply troubled by the agitation aroused; to justify himself in some measure, also to strengthen his position, now seriously compromised in great haste and issued during the same year his "Kirche und Kirchen, Papstthum und Kirchenstaat". It seems incredible that the opinions and judgements one reads in this work are really Döllinger's own; the reader is haunted by suspicion that he has before him a remarkable mixture of Byzantinism and hypocrisy.

The Catholic academic circles of Germany in the meantime deeply agitated by the discussions incident to the renaissance of Scholaticism (see NEO-SCHOLASTICISM) in theology and philosophy, and those over the merit of the episcopal seminaries as against the theological faculties of the universities for the education of candidates to the priesthood. There were excesses on both sides that intensified the situation, whereupon it seemed to many that an academical congress would be a helpful measure. An Assembly of Catholic scholars met in 1863 at Munich, before which, as already stated, Döllinger delivered (28 September) the discourse "Die Vergangenheit und Gegenwart der katholischen Theologie" (The Past and Present of Catholic Theology). His views as expressed in this occasion, were calculated to irritate and embitter his opponents, and a reconciliation seemed further away than before. Shortly afterwards, in the thirteenth thesis of the papal Syllabus of 8 Dec., 1864 (see QUANTA CURA) certain opinions of Döllinger were condemned.

It was unfortunate, but not surprising, therefore, that the "Papstfabeln des Mittelalters", medieval fables about the popes (Munich, 1863; 2nd ed. 1890) received no impartial appreciation from his opponents; the pages (131-53) on the Monothelism of Pope Honorius were considered particularly offensive. From this period to the publication of the "Janus" letters, the pen of Döllinger produced mostly anonymous articles, in which his approaching apostasy was daily more clearly foeshadowed. He gave also much thought to the plan of a universal German biography, the "Allgemeine deutsche Biographie". Though it was finally von Rancke who induced the Munich Academy to undertake the now practically finished work which, unfortunately, still shows frequent traces of partisanship, it was Döllinger's ardour and insistence that first moved the Academy to consider the proposition. There is even yet a very widespread conviction, and it was believed by the great Christian archaeologist De Rossi, who was quite accurately informed on all the details of the Vatican Council, that Döllinger would scarcely have left the Church if he had been invited to take an honorable share in the preliminary work for the council. Nor does this seem at all improbable to those who understand his character. It is, in any case, very regrettable that on this point the influence of Cardinal Reisach should have outweighed that of Cardinal Schwarzenberg, and availed to exclude the Munich historian.

Scarcely had the first detailed accounts of the council's proceedings appeared, when Döllinger published in the Ausburg "Allgemeine Zeitung" his famous "March articles", reprinted anonymously in August of that year under the title: "Janus, der Papst, und das Konzil". The accurate knowledge of papal history here manifested easily convinced most readers that only Döllinger could have written the work. At this time he provoked the "Hohenlohe theses" and followed them up with an anonymous work, "Erwägungen fur die Bischöfe des Konzils uber die Frage der Unfehlbalkeit", considerations concerning papal infallibility for the bishops of the council. This work was translated into French, and a copy sent to every bishop. In the meantime Cardinal Schwarzenberg, in unison with French sympathizers, urged him to be present at Rome in his private capacity during the council; he preferred, however, to remain at Munich, where he prepared for the aforesaid "Allgemeine Zeitung", with materials sent him regularly from Rome (even by bishops), the well-known Roman correspondence (Briefe vom Knzil), each letter of which fell in Rome like a bomb, but whose real author no one knew. When Döllinger wrote for the same journal, over his own name, the articles "Einige Worte uber die Unfehlbarkeitsaddresse der Konzilsmajoritat" (a few words on the address of the majority of the bishops concerning papal infallibility) and "Die neue Gesehäftsordnung im Konzil" (the council's new order of business), he was denounced in Rome as a heretic. Bishop Ketteler addressed to him an open letter quite brusque in tone, while other bishops urged him to keep silent. Döllinger yielded, and on 18 July, 1780, the personal infallibility of the pope and his universal pastoral office were declared articles of faith. The foregoing presentation of the actual situation in that critical time is taken from the life of Döllinger by Johann Friedrich, the theologian of Cardinal Hohenlohe during the council and to whom, despite his oath of silence concerning the affairs of the council, Döllinger was indebted for the materials of the "Letters". The declaration of papal infallibility meant naturally for Döllinger a severe internal conflict. The facts however do not justify the statement that he had long previously determined never to accept the dogma. The Archbishop of Munich, however, insisted on a public declaration of his attitude, and Döllinger weakly yielded to the pressure of those who were bent on apostasy, and wrote to the archbishop, 29 March, 1871, declaring his refusal to accept the dogma and stating his reasons in his character as Christian, theologian, historian, and citizen.

Leo XIII and Pius X have both declared, with all due formality and solemnity, that Church and State each within its own limits, are mutually independent; the Döllinger portrait of an infallible pope domineering over the State is, therefore, a caricature. For the great scholar it was dies ater when he wrote these words, for the theologian a period of profound mental confusion, for the Christian a succumbing to spiritual arrogance, for the citizen a full confession of the bureaucratic omnipotence of the State, a kind of belated resurrection of the memories of his youth.

Döllinger had definitely severed connection with the Church. Three weeks later (18 April, 1871) both Döllinger and Friedrick were publicly declared excommunicated. The action of the archbishop, under the circumstances unavoidable, aroused much feeling; on the one side it was hailed as a decisive step that ended a situation grown scandalous and intolerable, on the other many rejoiced that the world-renowned scholar had not bent his neck under the yoke of Rome. This marked the rise of the sect of the Old Catholics. At Pentecost of the same year (1871) a declaration was published, chiefly the work of Döllinger, setting forth the need of an ecclesiastical organization. Döllinger also signed a petition to the Government asking for one of the churches of Munich. Hitherto the opposition of this party to the Church had been mostly of a philosophico-historical character, and the dominant statesmen of the time could turn it to little practical account. It was now the hour for a number of inimical canonists whose opportunity lay in the anti-Catholic tendencies of the governments of the period. Prince Bismarck's plan of a National German Catholic Church, as independent of Rome as it was possible to make it (foreshadowed by Döllinger in 1849), corresponded now with the wishes of he apostate catholics, henceforth governed absolutely by the canonist von Schulte (see OLD CATHOLICS). The first assembly of these opponents of the Vatican Council was held at Munich, 22-24 Sept. 1871. On the suggestion of von Schulte, and despite the opposition and warnings of Döllinger, it was decided to establish the "Old Catholic Church". Thenceforth Döllinger followed a policy of vacillation, avoiding on the one hand any formal relationship to the new Church, on the other helpful to it by counsel and deeds; at one time disapproving positively important decisions of the sect, and again placing at its disposal all his influence and prestige. The new "Church" lacked distinction and was personally very distasteful to him; in public, however, though with measured reserve, he defended it. Henceforth formally excommunicated from the Catholic Church, he recognized the validity and legality of that act, at the same time he held it beneath his dignity to submit to the jurisdiction of Bishop Reinkens, for whom the Old Catholics had obtained consecration from the Jansenists in Holland. He stood, therefore, between the two camps, and looked on it as almost a calumny that the most insignificant members of the new sect considered him, more or less, an intimate adherent and sharer of their trials.

The next seven years he spent in pacifying his conscience, or, in his own words in a process of internal criticism; until 1887 he did nothing of importance, apart from a few essays, his academic discourses, and the work "Ungedruckte Berichte und Tagebucher zur Geschichte des Konzils von Trient", unedited reports and diaries useful for a history of the Council of Trent (1876). In 1887 he edited, with Reusch, the autobiography of Bellarmine up to 13 June, 1613, in German; with Reusch also he published (1889-90) in two volumes "Geschichte der Moralstreitigkeiten in der romisch-katholischen Kirche seit dem sechszehnten Jahrhundert, mit Beitragen zur Geschichte und Carakteristik des Jesuitenordens", or a history of the moral-theological discussions in the Roman Catholic Church since the sixteenth century, including studies on the history and characteristics of the Jesuit Order. About the same time he published in two volumes his "Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters"; after his death appeared (1891) the third volume of is "Akademische Vortrage", or academic discourses.

He retained to the end a remarkable physical and mental strength. Though his latest writings met with a kindly reception in scientific circles they were not considered as superior in merit, either from the view-point of scientific criticism or as historical narrative. Seldom has it been so clearly proven that whenever a man turns completely from a glorious and honourable past, however stormy, his fate is irrevocably sealed.

PAUL MARIA BAUMGARTEN

Charles Dolman

Publisher and bookseller, b. at Monmouth, England, 20 Sept., 1807; d. in Paris, 31 December, 1863. He was the only son of Charles Dolman, a surgeon of Monmouth, and Mary Frances his wife, daughter of Thomas Booker, a Catholic publisher in London. Educated at St. Gregory's, the Benedictine college at Downside, near Bath, he later, while residing at Preston, Lancashire, studied architecture under Joseph A. Hansom, intending to follow that profession, but abandoned the idea on being invited by the Bookers, publishers and booksellers, into which family his father had married, to go to London. When Joseph Booker died in 1837, he was induced to carry on the business with his aunt, Mary Booker, and his cousin, Thomas Booker. In 1840 the name of the firm was changed to Booker & Dolman and finally the business was continued in his name only. His career as a publisher of periodical literature began when in 1838 he brought out a new series of "The Catholic Magazine", which up to that time had been known as "The Edinburgh Catholic Magazine", in contradistinction to "The Catholic Magazine", a much older publication which had gone out of existence in 1835. Dolman's publication was discontinued in June, 1844, but his name had become so widely known that in March, 1845, he brought out a new periodical called "Dolman's Magazine and Monthly Miscellany of Criticism". This was at first under the sole management of its publisher, but later the Rev. Edward Price succeeded him. Like the others it was short-lived and in 1849 it was merged with "The Catholic Weekly and Monthly Orthodox" under the title "The Weekly Register". It first appeared under the new name, 4 August, 1849, published by Thomas Booker. From this time on Dolman abandoned the publication of periodicals and devoted himself solely to works that had never before been brought out by the Catholic press. His many efforts to raise the standard of the Catholic press ended in failure. Disheartened by his ill-success and broken down in health, he retired to Paris, where he died. He was survived by his wife and an only son, the Very Rev. Charles Vincent Dolman, of Hereford, canon of Newport.

THOMAS GAFFNEY TAAFFE

Dolores Mission

(Or Mission San Francisco De Asis De Los Dolores)

In point of time the sixth in the chain of twenty-one California Indian Missions; formally opened 9 Oct., 1776. The date intended for the celebration was 4 Oct., the feast of St Francis of Asissi, but owing to the absence of the military commander of the neighboring presidio, which had been established on 17 Sept., the feast of the stigmata of St. Francis, the formal founding was delayed. The first Mass on or near the site was celebrated in a tent by Father Francisco Palou, on the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul, 29 June, and on 28 July, the first Mass was offered up in the temporary chapel. Father Palou on the title pages of the mission records gives 1 August as the day of foundation. The early missionaries, however, always celebrated the 4th of October as the patronal feast of the mission. The appellation "Dolores" was added because the mission was established on a streambed which Father Pedro Font, O.F.M., and Captain Juan Bautista de Anza had discovered on 28 March, 1776, and in honor of the Blessed Virgin had called Arroyo de Nuestra Señora de los Dolores. In all official documents, reports, and in the records, the mission bears no other name than San Francisco de Asis; but after 1824, when the Mission San Francisco Solano was established at Sonóma, to avoid confusion, it was popularly called Dolores, that is to say, the mission on the Dolores. The founders of the mission were Father Francisco Palou, the historian, and Father Pedro Benito Cambon. The other missionaries stationed here in the course of time were the Franciscan Fathers Tomás de la Peña, Miguel Giribet, Vincente de Santa Maria, Matías Noriega, Norberto de Santiago, Diego Garcia, Faustino de Solá, Antonio Dantí, Martin de Landaeta, Diego de Noboa, Manuel Fernández, José de Espí, Ramón Abella, Luis Gil, Juan Sainz, Vincente Oliva, Juan Cabot, Blas Ordaz, José Altimira, Tomás Esténega, Lorenzo Quijas, José Gutierrez, José Mercado, José Real, Miguel Muro. The Rev. Prudencio Santillan, the first secular priest, took charge in 1846.

The cornerstone of the present church, the oldest building in San Francisco, and which survived the earthquake of 1906 practically without damage, was laid in 1782 and finished with a thatched roof. In 1795, tiles replaced the thatch. The mission buildings as usual were erected in the form of a square. The church stood in the south-east corner fronting the east. The wings of the square contained the rooms of the missionaries, two of whom were always there until about June, 1828, the shops of the carpenters, smiths, saddlers, rooms for melting tallow and making soap, for the agricultural implements, for spinning wool and weaving coarse fabrics. There were twenty looms in constant operation, and two mills moved by mule-power ground the grain. Most of the neophytes were engaged in agriculture and stock-raising. Owing to the barren nature of the soil and the high winds in the neighborhood, sowing and planting was done ten or twelve miles down the peninsula. The stock also grazed far away from the mission. About one hundred yards from the church stood the neophyte village, composed of eight rows of one-story dwellings. The girls lived at the mission proper under the care of a matron (see California Missions). A school was in operation in 1818. The highest number of Indians living at the mission was reached in 1820, when 1242 neophytes made their home with the missionaries and received food, clothing, and instruction. The first baptism of an Indian occurred on 24 June, 1777. From that date till October, 1845, when the last Franciscan departed, 7200 names were entered into the baptismal record, about 500 of which represented white people. During the same period, 5503 deaths occurred and 2156 marriages were blessed; about eighty of the latter were those of white couples. From 1785 to the end of 1832, for which period we have the reports, the mission raised 120,000 bushels of wheat, 70,226 bushels of barley, 18,260 bushels of corn, 14,386 bushels of beans, 7296 bushels of peas, and 905 bushels of lentils and garvanzos or horse beans. The largest number of animals owned by the mission was as follows: cattle, 11,340 head in 1809; sheep, 11,324 in 1814; goats, 65 in 1786; horses, 1239 in 1831; mules, 45 in 1813.

Records of Mission San Francisco, Ms.; Archives of Mission Santa Barbara, Ms.; Font, Diario at Berkeley University, Ms. (Berkeley, CA.); Palou, Noticias (San Francisco, 1874). II, IV; Palou, Vida del Fray Junípero Serra (Mexico, 1787); Bancroft, History of California (San Francisco, 1886) I, V; Engelhardt, The Franciscans in California (Harbor Springs, Mich., 1897). Zephyrin Engelhardt.

Dolphin

(Lat. delphinus).

The use of the dolphin as a Christian symbol is connected with the general ideas underlying the more general use of the fish. The particular idea is that of swiftness and celerity symbolizing the desire with which Christians, who are thus represented as being sharers in the nature of Christ the true Fish, should seek after the knowledge of Christ. Hence the representation is generally of two dolphins tending towards the sacred monogram or some other emblem of Christ. In other cases the particular idea is that of love and tenderness. Aringhi (Roma Subterr., II, 327) gives an example of a dolphin with a heart, and other instances have some such motto as PIGNUS AMORIS HABES (i.e. thou hast a pledge of love). It is sometimes used as an emblem of merely conjugal love on funeral monuments. With an anchor the dolphin occurs frequently on early Christian rings, representing the attachment of the Christian to Christ crucified. Speaking generally, the dolphin is the symbol of the individual Christian, rather than of Christ Himself, though in some instances the dolphin with the anchor seems to be intended as a representation of Christ upon the Cross.

ARTHUR S. BARNES

Dome

(Lat. domus, a house).

An architectural term often used synonymously with cupola. Strictly speaking it signifies the external part of a spherical or polygonal covering of a building, of which the cupola (q.v.) is the inner structure, but in general usage dome means the entire covering. It is also loosely used, as in the German Dom and the Italian Duomo, to designate a cathedral, or at times, to signify some other building of importance. A dome may be of any material, wood, stone, metal, earthenware, or it may be built of a single mass or of a double or even triple series of concentric coverings. The dome is a roof, the base of which is a circle, an ellipsis, or a polygon, and its vertical section a curved line, concave towards the interior. Hence domes are called circular, elliptical or polygonal, according to the figure of the base. The most usual form is the spherical, in which case its plan is a circle, the section a segment of a circle. Domes are sometimes semi-elliptical, pointed, often in curves of contrary flexure, bell-shaped, etc. Except in the earlier period of the development of the dome, the interior and exterior forms were not often alike, and, in the space between, a staircase to the lantern was generally made.

Domes are of two kinds, simple and compound. In the simple dome, the dome and the pendentives are in one, and the height is only a little greater than that of an intersecting vault formed by semicircular arches. The dome over the central part of the tomb of Galla Placidia, at Ravenna, and those over some of the aisles of Saint Sophia, Constantinople, are of this description. In the compound dome two methods were followed. In both methods greater height is obtained, and the compound dome was consequently the one used on all important buildings of the later period. In one, the dome starts directly from the top of the circle formed by the pendentives; in the other, a cylindrical wall or "drum" intervenes between the pendentives and the dome, thus raising the latter considerably. In churches with domes without drums, the windows are in the dome itself immediately above the springing; otherwise, they are in the drum, and the surface of the dome is generally unbroken. At the monastery of St. Luke, Phocis, Greece, are two churches of the eleventh century, side by side, the smaller of which has a drum with windows in it, whereas the larger church has no drum, and the windows are in the dome. The drum is universal in all domed churches of the Renaissance, at which time it received special treatment and became a most important feature. Many of these drums are not circular in plan externally, but are many-sided, and the angles are often enriched by marble shafts, etc. The carrying-up of the walls vertically is a good expedient constructionally, as it provides weight above the haunches of the dome and helps to neutralize its thrusts. In the churches of the second period, at Constantinople, Salonica, Athens, and other parts of Greece, in which the true drum occurs, it is of considerable height and is generally eight-sided. Windows come at each, and over the windows are arches which cut into the dome itself.

A primitive form of the dome and the barrel vault is of great antiquity. In some districts men were compelled to build in stone or brick or mud, because there was no wood, as in Assyria; in other districts because they had not the tools to work wood. In all such cases some form of dome or tunnel vault had to be devised for shelter. In tracing the growth of the dome in historical times, it has been regarded as an outcome of the architecture of the Eastern Empire, because it was at Constantinople and in the Byzantine provinces that it was first employed in ecclesiastical structures. But it was the Romans who in reality developed the use of the dome, as of all other applications of the semicircular arch. From Rome it was carried to Constantinople and from the same source to different parts of the Western Empire. In Eastern Christendom the dome became the dominant factor in church design; whether a single dome, as at Saint Sophia, Constantinople (built, 532-537), or a central dome encircled by other domes, as at St. Mark's, Venice, or a row of domes, as at Angoulême. The plan and domes of Angoulême are reproduced in the new Catholic cathedral at Westminster. The Roman dome was a hemisphere supported by a circular wall. Its finest example was the Pantheon, Rome. Equally characteristic, though smaller, examples abound, e.g. at Rome, the temple of Minerva Medica, the tomb of Constantia, now the church of Santa Costanza, etc. Viollet-le-Duc in writing of the dome of the Pantheon says, "This majestic cupola is the widest, the most beautiful, the best constructed, and most stable of all the great domes of the world". The inside diameter of the dome is 142 1/2 feet. Previous to the building of the Pantheon in its present domical form, during the reign of Hadrian about A.D. 123, the history of the dome is for the most part a blank.

The primitive Eastern dome seems to have been on a very small scale, and to have been used for subordinate purposes only. It was a common architectural feature in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. In later times the dome was largely employed in architecture by the Persian Sassanids, Mohammedans, and the Byzantines. From the first domed churches built for Christian worship sprang Byzantine architecture and its offshoots. The builder of the earliest domed church of any magnitude was Constantine; its locality the famous city of Antioch in Syria. The problem of the Christian domed church, so far at least as its interior is concerned, received in Saint Sophia its full solution. The dome is the prevailing conception of Byzantine architecture, and M. Choisy, in his "Art de bâtir chez les Byzantins" traces the influence of this domical construction on Greek architecture to show how from their fusion the architecture of the Eastern Empire became possible. Domes were now, from the time of the construction of Saint Sophia, placed over square apartments, their bases being brought to a circle by means of pendentives, whereas, in Roman architecture, domes as a rule were placed over a circular apartment. The grouping of small domes round a large central one was very effective, and one of the peculiarities of Byzantine churches was that the dome had no additional outer covering. The dome was rarely used by medieval builders except when under oriental influence, hence it was practically confined to Spain and Italy. The dome of the cathedral at Pisa, the first model of the Tuscan style of architecture, was begun in the eleventh century, and in the thirteenth was founded the cathedral at Florence. Its dome equals in size that of St. Peter's at Rome, and was its model. During the Italian Renaissance, domed construction became again of the first importance, possibly on account of its classical precedent, and it is interesting to note that the Pantheon became once more the starting-point of a new development which culminated in the domes of St. Peter's, Rome, and St. Paul's, London.

The substructure of the dome of St. Peter's is a round drum, which serves as a stylobate and lifts it above the surrounding roofs. On this stands the ringwall of the drum, decorated with a Corinthian order and carrying an attic; on this sits the oval mass of the noblest dome in the world. The drum, fifty feet high, is pierced by sixteen square-headed windows. The enormous thickness of the stylobate allows an outside offset to receive the buttresses which are set between the windows, in the shape of spurwalls with engaged columns at the corners, over which the entablature is broken. The curve of the dome is of extraordinary beauty. Between its ribs, corresponding to the buttresses below, are three diminishing tiers of small dormer windows. The lantern above, with an Ionic order, repeats the arrangement of windows and buttresses in the drum below, and is surmounted by a Latin cross rising 448 feet above the pavement. The foremost Renaissance church in Florence is the church of the Annunziata, and is remarkable for a fine dome carried on a drum resting directly on the ground. To the latest time of the Renaissance in Venice belongs the picturesque domed church of Santa Maria della Salute. The two finest domes in France are those of the Hôtel des Invalides and the PanthÈon (formerly the church of Sainte Geneviève) at Paris. Domes built in the early part of the twelfth century are to be found at Valencia, Zamora, Salamanca, Clermont, Le Puy, Cahors. They are also found in Poitou, PÈrigord, and Auvergne; at Aachen, Cologne, Antwerp, and along the banks of the Rhine; at Aosta, Pavia, Como, Parma, Piacenza, Verona, Milan, etc. There are, besides, the bulbous domes of Russia and the flattened cupolas of the Saracens. The dome became the lantern in English Gothic, and the octagon of Ely cathedral is said to be the only true Gothic dome in existence. The central octagon of the Houses of Parliament, London, is the best specimen of a modern Gothic dome. Arab domes are mostly of the pointed form such as are derived from the rotation of the Gothic arch or bulbous, the section being a horse-shoe arch. Very beautiful examples are seen in the buildings known as the tombs of the caliphs at Cairo. Among the finest examples of domed buildings in the East are the Tombs of Mohammedan sultans in the south of India and at Agra. The largest dome in America is that of the Capitol at Washington. It is built of iron.

Fletcher, A History of Architecture (New York, 1905); Bond, Gothic Architecture in England (New York, 1906); Cummings, A History of Architecture in Italy (Boston, 1901); Brown, From Schola to Cathedral (Edinburgh, 1886); Smith, Architecture, Gothic and Renaissance (London, 1898); Simpson, A History of Architectural Development (New York, 1905); Walcott, Sacred Archaeology (London, 1869).

THOMAS H. POOLE

Emmanuel-Henri-Dieudonne Domenech

Abbe, missionary and author, b. at Lyons, France, 4 November, 1826; d. in France, June, 1886. In the spring of 1846, before completing his seminary studies and when not yet twenty years of age, he left France in response to an urgent appeal for missionaries to help develop the Church in the wilds of Texas, then rapidly filling up with American and European immigration. He went first to St. Louis, where he spent two years completing his theological course, studying English and German, and gathering knowledge of missionary requirements. In May, 1848, he was assigned to duty at the new German settlement of Castroville in Texas, from which he was transferred later to Brownsville. The war with Mexico was just concluded; raiding bands of Mexicans and rangers were ravaging on both sides of the Rio Grande, while outlaws from the border States and almost equally lawless discharged soldiers filled the new towns, and hostile Indians hovered constantly in the background. A cholera epidemic added its horrors. Nevertheless the young priest went bravely to work with such energy that he soon became an efficient power for good throughout all Southern Texas. In 1850 he visited Europe and was received by the pope. Returning to Texas, he continued in the mission field two years longer, when he returned to France with health broken and was appointed titulary canon of Montpellier. When the French troops were dispatched to Mexico in 1861 he was selected to accompany the expedition as almoner to the army and chaplain to the Emperor Maximilian. After the return to France he devoted his remaining years to European travel, study, and writing, and the exercise of his ecclesiastical functions. In 1882-3 he again visited America.

Among his numerous works dealing with travel, history, and theology, may be noted: "Journal d'un missionnaire au Texas et au Mexique" (Paris, 1857); "Voyage dans les solitudes américaines" (Paris, 1858); "Histoire du jansénisme"; "Histoire du Mexique" (Paris, 1868); "Souvenirs d'outre-mer" (Paris, 1884). His principal works have appeared also in English translation. In regard to his much-controverted "Manuscrit pictographique americain" (Paris, 1860), an examination of the supposed Indian pictographs leaves no doubt that in this case the unsuspecting missionary was grossly deceived.

JAMES MOONEY

Domenichino

Properly DOMENICO ZAMPIERI.

An Italian painter, born in Bologna, 21 Oct., 1581; died in Naples, 16 April, 1641. He began his art studies in the school of Calvaert, but being ill-treated there, his father, a poor shoemaker, placed him in the Carracci Academy, where Guido Reni and Albani were also students. Domenichino was a slow, thoughtful, plodding youth whom his companions called the "Ox", a nickname also borne by his master Ludovico. He took the prize for drawing in the Carracci Academy gaining thereby both fame and hatred. Stimulated by success, he studied unremittingly, particularly the expression of the human face, so that Bellori says "he could delineate the soul".

His student days over, he first visited Parma and Modena to study Correggio, and then went to Rome, where his earliest friend and patron, Cardinal Agucchi, commissioned him to decorate his palace. In Rome he assisted the Carracci with their frescoes in the palace of Cardinal Farnese, who became such an admirer of Domenichino that he had him execute many of the pictures in the Basilian Abbey of Grotta Ferrata. Domenichino's best frescoes are in this church. With Guido he painted, for Cardinal Borghese, in S. Gregorio; for Cardinal Aldobrandini he executed ten frescoes at Villa Franscati; for Cardinal Montalto he decorated S. Andrea della Valle; and for Cardinal Bandini he painted four pictures for S. Silvestro which rank among his best productions.

He immortalized his name by painting (1614) for the altar of S. Girolamo della Carità, the "Communion of St. Jerome", a copy of which, in mosaics, is in St. Peter's. This is one of the great pictures of the world and was considered second only to Raphael's "Transfiguration". He received about fifty dollars for it. Napoleon took it to Paris but the Allies returned it. Jealousy of Domenichino long accumulating now burst forth, and he was accused of copying his masterpiece from Agostino Carracci. Weary of attacks, the artist went to Bologna but later returned to Rome, where Pope Gregory XV made him painter and architect of the Apostolic Camera (pontifical treasury). In 1630 he settled in Naples and there opened a school, but was harassed, as in Rome, by envious artists (cabal of Naples), who disfigured his paintings. Mental suffering, perhaps poison, hastened his death. Domenichino, although not a master of great originality and inspiration, was a prominent figure in the Bolognese School. Potent in fresco he also excelled in decorative landscapes; his colour was warm and harmonious, his style simple, his chiaroscuro superbly managed, and his subordinate groups and accessaries well adjusted and of great interest. The most famous masters of the burin engraved his works, which are: "Portrait of Cardinal Agucchi", Uffizi, Florence; "Life of St. Nilus" (fresco) in Grotta Ferrata near Rome; "Condemnation of Adam and Eve", Louvre, Paris; "St. George and the Dragon", National Gallery, London; "St. John", Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

RICHTER, Catalogue of the Dulwich Gallery (London, 1880); DOHMER, Kunst and Kunstler des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit (Leipzig, 1877); BRYAN, Dictionary of Painters and Engravers.

LEIGH HUNT

Domesday Book

The name given to the record of the great survey of England made by order of William the Conqueror in 1085-86. The name first occurs in the famous "Dialogus de Scaccario", a treatise compiled about 1176 by Richard Fitznigel, which states that the English called the book of the survey "Domesdei", or "Day of Judgement", because the inquiry was one which none could escape, and because the verdict of this register as to the holding of the land was final and without appeal. Certain it is that native English resented William's inquisition. "It is shame to tell", wrote the chronicler, "what he thought it no shame for him to do. Ox, nor cow, nor swine was left that was not set down upon his writ." The returns give full information about the land of England, its ownership both in 1085 and in the time of King Edward, its extent, nature, value, cultivators, and villeins. The survey embraced all England except the northernmost counties. The results are set down in concise and orderly fashion in two books called the "Exchequer Domesday". Another volume, containing a more detailed account of Wilts, Dorset, Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall, is called the "Exon Domesday", as it is in the keeping of the cathedral chapter of Exeter.

The chief interest of the Domesday Book for us here lies in the light which it throws upon church matters. As Professor Maitland has pointed out, a comparison of Domesday with our earliest charters shows not only that the Church held lands of considerable, sometimes of vast, extent, but that she had obtained these lands by free grant from kings or underkings during the Saxon period. We find, for example, that four ministers, Worcester, Evesham, Pershore, and Westminster, were lords of seven-twelfths of the soil of Worcestershire, and that the Church of Worcester alone was lord of one-quarter of that shire besides other holdings elsewhere. It is probable, however, that this did not imply absolute ownership, but only superiority and a right to certain services (Maitland, "Domesday Book and Beyond", pp. 236-42). This must be borne in mind when we see it stated, and so far correctly, on the authority of Domesday, that the possessions of the Church represented twenty-five per cent of the assessment of the country in 1066 and twenty-six and one-half per cent of its cultivated area in 1086. These lands were in any case very unequally distributed, the proportion of church land being much greater in the South of England. The record does not enable us to tell clearly how far the parochial system had developed, and though in Norfolk and Suffolk all the churches seem to have been entered, amounting to 243 in the former, and 364 in the latter, county, the same care to note the churches was obviously not exercised in the West of England. Much church property seems to have been of the nature of a tenancy held from the king upon conditions of some service to be rendered, often of a spiritual kind. Thus we read; "Alwin the priest holds the sixth part of a hide", at Turvey, Beds, "and held it tempore regis Edwardi, and could do what he liked with it; King William afterwards gave it to him in alms, on condition that he should celebrate two ferial masses [ferias missas] for the souls of the King and Queen twice a week." Valuable as is the information which the Domesday Book supplies, many questions suggested by it remain obscure and are still keenly debated. A facsimile of the whole record was brought out some years ago by photozincography, and at the end of the eighteenth century an edition was printed in type specially cast to represent the contractions of the original manuscript.

The most convenient introduction to the subject is BALLARD, The Domesday Inquest (London, 1906). The more advanced student may be referred to MAITLAND, Domesday Book and Beyond (new ed., London, 1907); to ROUND, Feudal England (London, 1895); and to EYTON, Domesday Studies. But there are many minor essays dealing with questions of local interest.

HERBERT THURSTON

Domicile

(Lat. jus domicilii, right of habitation, residence).

The canon law has no independent and original theory of domicile; both the canon law and all modern civil codes borrowed this theory from the Roman law; the canon law, however, extended and perfected the Roman theory by adding thereto that of quasi-domicile. For centuries ecclesiastical legislation contained no special provision in regard to domicile, adapting itself quite unreservedly on this point both to Roman and Barbarian law. It was only in the thirteenth century, after the revival at Bologna of the study of Roman law, that legists and then the canonists, returned to the Roman theory of domicile, introducing it first into the schools and then into practice. Not that the Church had "canonized", so to speak, this particular point of Roman law more than others, but civil law, being more ancient, formed a basis for canon law, which accepted it, at least in so far as it was not at variance with later decrees of pontifical law. So true is this that there exists no document in which the theory of domicile has been completely and officially expounded by an ecclesiastical legislator.

I. ROMAN LAW

We must therefore revert to Roman law, which established domicile as the extension or communication of a pre-existent legal status of individuals–origin (origo, jus originis). In the theory of the Roman lawyers each man belongs to his municipality, to his city, where, as he contributes his share to the expenses and taxes, so he has a right to the common advantages. Children naturally follow their father's condition and belong likewise to the city, even though born at a distance. Such is the Roman origo, quite akin to what we call nationality, except that the origo relates to the restricted locality of one's birth, and nationality to one's native land. Hence it is birth, the legal birthplace, that determines one's origo, i.e not the actual site of birth but the place where each one should have been born, the municipality to which the father belonged (L. 1. ff. Ad municip.). Let us now suppose a man settled for a long time in a city of which he is not a native. Partly in return for the taxes he pays, and partly to permit him to exercise local civic duties, he is granted the status of a real citizen, without loss, however, of his own origo or municipal right. Such, then, is the primitive concept of domicile in Roman law: the communication to a man, born in one municipality but residing permanently in another, of the civil rights normally reserved to citizens who are natives of the locality. To become as one of the latter, the stranger must crreate for himself a domicile, and it was this that necessarily led jurists to define domicile and the conditions upon which it could be acquired. Hence the celebrated definition of domicile given by the Emperors Diocletian and Maximianus (L. 7, G. de incol.): "It is certain that each one has his domicile in the place where he has established his home and business and has his possessions; a residence which he does not intend to abandon, unless called elsewhere, from which he departs only as a traveller and by returning to which he ceases to be a traveller." The juridical element constitutive of domicile is the intention, the will definitively to settle oneself in a place, this will being deduced from the circumstances and especially the conditions of installation. It implies indefinite stability, not perpetuity in the restricted sense of the word, as though one renounced the right to change domicile. Another domicile may at any time be acquired on the same conditions as the first; it is lost when the intention of abandoning it is coupled with the fact of desertion. Since, therefore, domicile conferred the same rights as origo, its importance became gradually more and more marked.

We can now better understand the words that so often recur in Roman law and have been adopted by canonists: those who belong to a municipality by right of birth are citizens (cives), though these terms are used almost synonymously by legists and canonists; those who have spent a sufficient time there without, however, acquiring a domicile, are strangers (advenæ), though to them canonists concede a quasi-domicile. Finally, those who make but a passing sojourn there are transients (peregrini; cf. L. 239, de Verb. sign.). To these categories canonists have added one which the Roman origo, being permanent, could not recognize, namely the wanderers (vagi), who have no fixed residence or who, having definitely abandoned one domicile, have not as yet acquired another.

II. DEVELOPMENT OF DOMICILE IN CANON LAW

In the troublous times that prevailed after the Barbarian invasions, the domicile of Roman law was lost sight of, and even the word itself disappeared from the juridical language of the time. However, this does not mean that persons inhabiting certain limited districts had wholly ceased to be connected with local authority, whether civil or religious, nor that all acts were regulated exclusively, after the barbarian concept, by a personal code. The material fact of habitation could not, it is true, be ignored, but it no longer served for a theory of domicile. The medieval ecclesiastical canons say that each Catholic (fidelis) should pay his tithes in the church where he was baptized and that his obsequies should be held wherever he pays his tithes, etc., but there is no mention of domicile.

The Roman theory was again restored to honour by the glossarists of the Bolognese School, expecially by Accursius in the beginning of the thirteenth century. Whether it was because they mistook the real meaning of origo or desired to explain it in a way that suited the customs of their time, they interpreted it as a sort of domicile resulting from one's birthplace, and if one were born there per accidens, from the place of one's father's birth. Except for this inaccuracy, the Roman theory was well expounded. Moreover, according to the favourite principles of their time, the glossarists brought into prominence the double constitutive element of domicile (or, properly speaking, of acquired domicile): the material element (corpus), i.e. habitation, and the juridical or formal element (animus), i.e. the intention to remain in this habitation indefinitely. Although they did not contribute directly to this revival of domicile, canonists nevertheless adopted it and it was definitively admitted in the gloss of "Liber Sextus" (cc. 2 and 3, de sepult.). They applied these rules to the acts of Christian life: baptism, paschal Communion and Viaticum, confession, extreme unction, funerals, interments, then also to ordination and juridical competency. The actual canonical rules on domicile are about the same.

In the meantime almost the only development of canon law in this matter has been the creation of the quasi-domicile theory, foreign alike to Roman and modern civil law. As its name implies, quasi-domicile is closely patterned on domicile and consists in a sojourn in some one place during a sufficient length of time. Not only does it not call for abandonment of the real domicile, but can co-exist with the latter and even suppose the intention of returning thither. It was evident that the ordinary acts of the Christian life, the rights and obligations of a parishioner, could not be confined to permanent residents only; hence the necessity of assimilating to such residents those who sojourn in the place for a certain length of time. The canonists soon concluded that whoever has a quasi-domicile in a place may receive there the sacraments and perform there legitimately all the acts of the Christian life without forfeiting any of his rights in the place of his real domicile; he may even thus become subject to the judicial authority of his place of quasi-domicile. The only restrictions are, as we shall see, for ordinations and, to a certain extent, for funerals. For a long time, however, the theory remained vague and undetermined. Authors could scarcely agree as to precisely what was meant by the "sufficient length" of time (non breve tempus) required for quasi-domicile, and they hesitated to pronounce on the various possible reasons for a sojourn and the degree in which they could create presumption of an intention to acquire quasi-domicile. Strictly speaking, the question was really important only in regard to thosse marriages whose validity depended on the existence of a quasi-domicile in countries where the Tridentine decree "Tametsi" had been published; in this way, as we shall see below, new legislation became necessary. The quasi-domicile theory was not definitively settled until the appearance of the Instruction of the Holy Office addressed to the Bishops of England and the United States, 7 June, 1867, in which quasi-domicile is patterned as closely as possible on domicile. Like the latter, it is made up of the double element of fact and right, i.e. of residence and the intention of abiding in it for a sufficient length of time, this time being clearly stated as a period covering more than six months– per majorem anni partem. As soon as these two conditions coexist, quasi-domicile is acquired and immediately involves the legal use of rights and competencies resulting therefrom. (See below for a recent restriction in regard to marriage.) Finally, quasi-domicile is lost by the simultaneous cessation of both its constitutive elements, i.e. by the abandonment of residence without any intention of returning to it. Suffice it to add that in this matter the canon law, yielding to custom, tends easily to adapt itself to the provisions of civil law, e.g. as regards the legal domicile of minors, wards, and other analogous provisions.

III. PRESENT LAW

From the preceding explanation there results a very important conclusion which throws a strong light on canonical legislation concerning domicile and which we must now set forth. It is this: the law does not deal with domicile for its own sake, but rather on account of its consequences; in other words, on account of the personal rights and obligations attached thereto. This explains why domicile must meet divers requirements more or less severe according to the case in point, e.g. marriage, ordination, juridical competency. Keeping therefore in view the legal consequences of domicile and its various forms it may be defined as a stable residence which entails submission to local authority and permits the exercise of acts for which this authority is competent. To this definition the laws and their commentators confine themselves, without touching on the legal effects of domicile. As we have already seen, domicile, properly so called, is the place one inhabits indefinitely (locus perpetuæ habitationis), such perpetuity being quite compatible with more or less transitory residence elsewhere. It matters not whether one be the owner or simply the occupant of the house in which one dwells or whether one owns more or less property in the locality. The place of one's domicile is not the house werein one resides but the territorial district in which the house or home stands. This district is usually the smallest territory possessing a distinct, self-governing organization. All authors agree that, from a civil viewpoint, the municipality is the place of domicile and, canonically considered, the parish or territorial division replacing it, e.g. mission or station. It is in the municipality that the acts and rights of civil life are exercised, and in the parish those of the Christian life. Strictly speaking, one cannot acquire domicile in a ward or hamlet or in any territorial division which does not form a self- governing group. Of course there are certain acts that do not depend, or that no longer depend, on local authority; in this sense, it is possible to speak of domicile in a diocese when it is question e.g. of ordination, or of domicile in a province apropos of the competency of a tribunal. But these exceptions are merely apparent; they imply that one has a domicile in some parish within a given diocese. The canon law has never recognized as domicile an unstable residence in different parts of a diocese without intent to establish oneself in some particular parish. Canon law (c. 2, de sepult. in VI), like Roman law (L. 5, 7, 27, Ad municip.), allows a double domicile, provided there be in both places a morally equal installation; the most ordinary example of this being a winter domicile in the city and a summer domicile in the country.–There are three kinds of domicile: domicile of origin, domicile of residence or acquired domicile, and necessary or legal domicile. The domicile of origin, a somewhat inexact imitation of the Roman origo, is that assigned to each individual by his place of nativity unless he be accidentally born outside of the place where his father dwells; practically it is the paternal domicile for legitimate and the maternal domicile for illegitimate children. Again, in reference to the spiritual life, domicile of nativity is the place where adults and abandoned children are baptized.–The domicile of residence or acquired domicile is that of one's own choice, the place where one establishes a residence for an indefinite period. It is acquired by the fact of material residence joined to the intention of there remaining as long as one has no reason for settling elsewhere; this intention being manifested either by an express declaration or by circumstances. Once acquired, domicile subsists, despite more or less prolonged absences, until one leaves it with the intention of not returning.–Finally, necessary or legal domicile is that imposed by law; for prisoners or exiles it is their prison or place of banishment; for a wife it is the domicile of the husband which she retains even after becoming a widow; for children under age it is that of the parents who have authority over them; for wards it is that of their guardians; lastly, for whoever exercises a perpetual charge, e.g. a bishop, canon, or parish priest, etc., it is the place where he discharges his functions.

Quasi-domicile is of one kind only, namely of residence and choice and cannot be acquired in any other way. It is acquired and lost on the same conditions as domicile itself and is deduced mainly from such reasons as justify a sojourn of at least six months, e.g. the pursuit of studies, or even for an indefinite period, as in the case of domestics. Quasi-domicile is presumed, especially for marriage, after a month's sojourn according to the Constitution "Paucis abhinc" of Benedict XIV, 19 March, 1758; but this presumption yields to contrary proof, except however when it is transformed into a presumption juris et de jure, which admits of no contrary proof; such is the case for the United States in virtue of the indult of 6 May, 1886, granted at the request of the Council of Baltimore in 1884 (Acts et Decreta, p. cix) and extended to the Diocese of Paris, 20 May, 1905. This being so, quasi-residents are regarded as subjects of the local authority just as are permanent residents, being therefore parishioners bound by local laws and possessing the same rights as residents, with this difference, that, if they so choose, they may go and use their rights in their own domicile. They can, therefore, apply to the local parish priest, as to their own parish priest, not only for those sacraments administered to every one who presents himself, e.g. Holy Eucharist and penance, but also for the baptism of their children, for first Communion, paschal Communion, Viaticum, and extreme unction. Their nuptials may also be solemnized in his presence and, except when they have chosen to be buried elsewhere, their funerals should take place from the parish church of their quasi-domicile. Finally, the quasi-domicile permits of their legitimate citation before a judge competent for the locality. As regards marriage, the quasi-domicile affected its validity in parishes subject to the decree "Tametsi" until the decree "Ne temere" of 2 August, 1907, rendered the competency of the parish priest exclusively territorial, so that all marriages contracted in his presence, within his parochial territory, are valid; for a licit marriage, however, one of the two betrothed must have dwelt within the parish for at least a month.

On the other hand those who have neither a domicile nor a quasi-domicile in a parish, who are only there as transients (peregrini), are not counted as parishioners; the parish priest is not their pastor and they should respect the pastoral rights of their own parish priest at least in so far as possible. The restrictions of former times, it is true, have been greatly lessened and at present no one would dream of obtaining parochial rights for annual confession, paschal Communion or the Viaticum. Something, however, still remains: for marriage transients must ask the delegation or authorization of the parish priest of their domicile (regularly of the bride) if the contracting parties have not already sojourned for a month within the parish where they seek to contract marriage; funerals also belong to the parish priest of the domicile, i.e. if the interested parties desire to, and can transport to the parish church the body of the deceased; in any event the parish priest may demand the parochial dues known as quarta funeralis. Generally speaking, transients (peregrini) are not subjects of the local ecclesiastical authority; they are not held to the observance of local laws except inasmuch as these affect public order, nor do they become subjects of the local judicial authority.

As to the domicile requisite for ordination there are special rules formulated by Innocent XII, in his Constitution "Speculatores", 4 November, 1694. The candidate for orders depends upon a bishop, first by reason of his origin, that is to say, of the place where his father had a domicile at the time of his son's birth; second by reason of his own acquired domicile. But the conditions which this domicile must satisfy are rather severe: the candidate must have already resided in the diocese for ten years or else have transported most of his movable goods to a house in which he has resided for three years; moreover, in both cases, he must affirm under oath his intention of definitively establishing himself in the diocese. This is a qualified domicile, the conditions of which must not be extended to other cases.

      Benedict xiv, Ep. Paucis abhinc: Id. Instit. Can. 33, 88; Sanchez, De matrim., III; Fagnanus, Comment. in Decretal. in cap. Significavit, III, tit. xxix; Bassibey, La clandestinité dans le mariage (Bordeaux, 1904); Fourneret, Le domicile matrimonial (Paris, 1906); D' Annibale, Summula Theologiæ moralis (Rome, 1908), I, n. 82-86; O' Neill in Am. Eccles. Rev. (Philadelphia, April, 1908).

A. Boudinhon

St. Dominic

Founder of the Order of Preachers, commonly known as the Dominican Order; born at Calaroga, in Old Castile, c. 1170; died 6 August, 1221. His parents, Felix Guzman and Joanna of Aza, undoubtedly belonged to the nobility of Spain, though probably neither was connected with the reigning house of Castile, as some of the saint's biographers assert. Of Felix Guzman, personally, little is known, except that he was in every sense the worthy head of a family of saints. To nobility of blood Joanna of Aza added a nobility of soul which so enshrined her in the popular veneration that in 1828 she was solemnly beatified by Leo XII. The example of such parents was not without its effect upon their children. Not only Saint Dominic but also his brothers, Antonio and Manes, were distinguished for their extraordinary sanctity. Antonio, the eldest, became a secular priest and, having distributed his patrimony to the poor, entered a hospital where he spent his life minis ministering to the sick. Manes, following in the footsteps of Dominic, became a Friar Preacher, and was beatified by Gregory XVI.

The birth and infancy of the saint were attended by many marvels forecasting his heroic sanctity and great achievements in the cause of religion. From his seventh to his fourteenth year he pursued his elementary studies tinder the tutelage of his maternal uncle, the archpriest of Gumiel d'lzan, not far distant from Calaroga. In 1184 Saint Dominic entered the University of Palencia. Here he remained for ten years prosecuting his studies with such ardour and success that throughout the ephemeral existence of that institution he was held up to the admiration of its scholars as all that a student should be. Amid the frivolities and dissipations of a university city, the life of the future saint was characterized by seriousness of purpose and an austerity of manner which singled him out as one from whom great thin might be expected in the future. But more than one he proved that under this austere exterior he carried a heart as tender as a woman's. On one occasion he sold his books, annotated with his own hand, to relieve the starving poor of Palencia. His biographer and contemporary, Bartholomew of Trent, states that twice he tried to sell himself into slavery to obtain money for the liberation of those who were held in captivity by the Moors. These facts are worthy of mention in view of the cynical and saturnine character which some non-Catholic writers have endeavoured to foist upon one of the most charitable of men. Concerning the date of his ordination his biographers are silent; nor is there anything from which that date can be inferred with any degree of certainty. According to the deposition of Brother Stephen, Prior Provincial of Lombardy, given in the process of canonization, Dominic was still a student at Palencia when Don Martin de Bazan, the Bishop of Osma, called him to membership in the cathedral chapter for the purpose If assisting in its reform. The bishop realized the importance to his plan of reform of having constantly before his canons the example of one of Dominic's eminent holiness. Nor was he disappointed in the result. In recognition of the part he had taken in converting its members into canons regular, Dominic was appointed sub-prior of the reformed chapter. On the accession of Don Diego d'Azevedo to the Bishopric of Osma in 1201, Dominic became superior of the chapter with the title of prior. As a canon of Osma, he spent nine years of his life hidden in God and rapt in contemplation, scarcely passing beyond the confines of the chapter house.

In 1203 Alfonso IX, King of Castile, deputed the Bishop of Osma to demand from the Lord of the Marches, presumably a Danish prince, the hand of his daughter on behalf of the king's son, Prince Ferdinand. For his companion on this embassy Don Diego chose Saint Dominic. Passing through Toulouse in the pursuit of their mission, they beheld with amazement and sorrow the work of spiritual ruin wrought by the Albigensian heresy. It was in the contemplation of this scene that Dominic first conceived the idea of founding an order for the purpose of combating heresy and spreading the light of the Gospel by preaching to the ends of the then known world. Their mission having ended successfully, Diego and Dominic were dispatched on a second embassy, accompanied by a splendid retinue, to escort the betrothed princess to Castile. This mission, however, was brought to a sudden close by the death of the young woman in question. The two ecclesiastics were now free to go where they would, and they set out for Rome, arriving there towards the end of 1204. The purpose of this was to enable Diego to resign his bishopric that he might devote himself to the conversion of unbelievers in distant lands. Innocent III, however, refused to approve this project, and instead sent the bishop and his companion to Languedoc to join forces with the Cistercians, to whom he had entrusted the crusade against the Albigenses. The scene that confronted them on their arrival in Languedoc was by no means an encouraging one. The Cistercians, on account of their worldly manner of living, had made little or no headway against the Albigenses. They had entered upon their work with considerable pomp, attended by a brilliant retinue, and well provided with the comforts of life. To this display of worldliness the leaders of the heretics opposed a rigid asceticism which commanded the respect and admiration of their followers. Diego and Dominic quickly saw that the failure of the Cistercian apostolate was due to the monks' indulgent habits, and finally prevailed upon them to adopt a more austere manner of life. The result was at once apparent in a greatly increased number of converts. Theological disputations played a prominent part in the propaganda of the heretics. Dominic and his companion, therefore, lost no time in engaging their opponents in this kind of theological exposition. Whenever the opportunity offered, they accepted the gage of battle. The thorough training that the saint had received at Palencia now proved of inestimable value to him in his encounters with the heretics. Unable to refute his arguments or counteract the influence of his preaching, they visited their hatred upon him by means of repeated insults and threats of physical violence. With Prouille for his head-quarters, he laboured by turns in Fanjeaux, Montpellier, Servian, Béziers, and Carcassonne. Early in his apostolate around Prouille the saint realized the necessity of an institution that would protect the women of that country from the influence of the heretics. Many of them had already embraced Albigensianism and were its most active propagandists. These women erected convents, to which the children of the Catholic nobility were often sent-for want of something better-to receive an education, and, in effect, if not on purpose, to be tainted with the spirit of heresy. It was needful, too, that women converted from heresy should be safeguarded against the evil influence of their own homes. To supply these deficiencies, Saint Dominic, with the permission of Foulques, Bishop of Toulouse, established a convent at Prouille in 1206. To this community, and afterwards to that of Saint Sixtus, at Rome, he gave the rule and constitutions which have ever since guided the nuns of the Second Order of Saint Dominic.

The year 1208 opens a new epoch in the eventful life of the founder. On 15 January of that year Pierre de Castelnau, one of the Cistercian legates, was assassinated. This abominable crime precipitated the crusade under Simon de Montfort, which led to the temporary subjugation of the heretics. Saint Dominic participated in the stirring scenes that followed, but always on the side of mercy, wielding the arms of the spirit while others wrought death and desolation with the sword. Some historians assert that during the sack of Béziers, Dominic appeared in the streets of that city, cross in hand, interceding for the lives of the women and children, the aged and the infirm. This testimony, however, is based upon documents which Touron regards as certainly apocryphal. The testimony of the most reliable historians tends to prove that the saint was neither in the city nor in its vicinity when Béziers was sacked by the crusaders. We find him generally during this period following the Catholic army, reviving religion and reconciling heretics in the cities that had capitulated to, or had been taken by, the victorious de Montfort. it was p-bbly I September, 1209, that Saint Dominic first came in contact with Simon de Montfort and formed with him that intimate friendship which was to last till the death of the brave crusader under the walls of Toulouse (25 June, 1218). We find him by the side of de Montfort at the siege of Lavaur in 121 1, and again in 1212, at the capture of La Penne d'Ajen. In the latter part of 1212 he was at Pamiers labouring, at the invitation of de Montfort, for the restoration of religion and morality. Lastly, just before the battle of Muret. 12 September, 1213, the saint is again found in the council that preceded the battle. During the progress of the conflict, he knelt before the altar in the church of Saint-Jacques, praying for the triumph of the Catholic arms. So remarkable was the victory of the crusaders at Muret that Simon de Montfort regarded it as altogether miraculous, and piously attributed it to the prayers of Saint Dominic. In gratitude to God for this decisive victory, the crusader erected a chapel in the church of Saint-Jacques, which he dedicated, it is said, to Our Lady of the Rosary. It would appear, therefore, that the devotion of the Rosary, which tradition says was revealed to Saint Dominic, had come into general use about this time. To this period, too, has been ascribed the foundation of the Inquisition by Saint Dominic, and his appointment as the first lnquisitor. As both these much controverted questions will receive special treatment elsewhere in this work, it will suffice for our)resent purpose to note that the Inquisition was in operation in 1198, or seven years before the saint took part in the apostolate in Languedoc, and while ie was still an obscure canon regular at Osma. If he was for a certain time identified-with the operations of the Inquisition, it was only in the capacity of a theologian passing upon the orthodoxy of the accused. Whatever influence he may have had with the judges of that much maligned institution was always employed on the side of mercy and forbearance, as witness the classic case of Ponce Roger.

In the meantime, the saint's increasing reputation for heroic sanctity, apostolic zeal, and profound learning caused him to be much sought after as a candidate for various bishoprics. Three distinct efforts were made to miss him to the episcopate. In July, 1212, the chapter of Béziers chose him for their bishop. Again, the canons of Saint-Lizier wished him to succeed Garcias de l'Orte as Bishop of Comminges. Lastly, in 1215 an effort was made by Garcias de l'Orte himself, who had been transferred from - Comminges to Auch, to make him Bishop of Navarre. But Saint Dominic absolutely refused all episcopal honours, saying that he would rather take flight in the night, with nothing but his staff, than accept the episcopate. From Muret Dominic returned to Carcassonne, where he resumed his preaching with unqualified success. It was not until 1214 that he returned to Toulouse. In the meantime the influence of his preaching and the eminent holiness of his life had drawn around him a little band of devoted disciples eager to follow wherever he might lead. Saint Dominic had never for a moment forgotten his purpose, formed eleven years before, of founding a religious order to combat heresy and propagate religious truth. The time now seemed opportune for the realization of his plan. With the approval of Bishop Foulques of Toulouse, he began the organization of his little band of followers. That Dominic and his companions might possess a fixed source of revenue Foulques made him chaplain of Fanjeaux and in July, 1215, canonically established the community as a religious congregation of his diocese, whose mission was the propagation of true doctrine and good morals, and the extirpation of heresy. During this same year Pierre Seilan, a wealthy citizen of Toulouse, who had placed himself under the direction of Saint Dominic, put at their disposal his own commodious dwelling. In this way the first convent of the Order of Preachers was founded on 25 April, 1215. But they dwelt here only a year when Foulques established them in the church of Saint Romanus. Though the little community had proved amply the need of its mission and the efficiency of its service to the Church, it was far from satisfying the full purpose of its founder. It was at best but a diocesan congregation, and Saint Dominic had dreamed Of a world-order that would carry its apostolate to the ends of the earth. But, unknown to the saint, events were shaping themselves for the realization of his hopes. In November, 1215, an ecumenical council was to meet at Rome "to deliberate on the improvement of morals, the extinction of heresy, and the strengthening of the faith". This was identically the mission Saint Dominic had determined on for his order. With the Bishop of Toulouse, he was present at the deliberations of this council. From the very first session it seemed that events conspired to bring his plans to a successful issue. The council bitterly arraigned the bishops for their neglect of preaching. In canon X they were directed to delegate capable men to preach the word of God to the people. Under these circumstances, it would reasonably appear that Dominic's request for confirmation of an order designed to carry out the mandates of the council would be joyfully granted. But while the council was anxious that these reforms should be put into effect as speedily as possible, it was at the same time opposed to the institution of any new religious orders, and had legislated to that effect in no uncertain terms. Moreover, preaching had always been looked upon as primarily a function of the episcopate. To bestow this office on an unknown and untried body of simple priests s seemed too original and too bold in its conception to appeal to the conservative prelates who influenced the deliberations of the council. When, therefore, his petition for the approbation of his infant institute was refused, it could not have been wholly unexpected by Saint Dominic.

Returning to Languedoc at the close of the council in December, 1215, the founder gathered about him his little band of followers and informed them of the wish of the council that there should be no new rules for religious orders. Thereupon they adopted the ancient rule of Saint Augustine, which, on account of its generality, would easily lend itself to any form they might wish to give it. This done, Saint Dominic again appeared before the pope in the month of August, 1216, and again solicited the confirmation of his order. This time he was received more favourably, and on 22 December, 1216, the Bull of confirmation was issued.

Saint Dominic spent the following Lent preaching in various churches in Rome, and before the pope and the papal court. It was at this time that he received the office and title of Master of the Sacred Palace, or Pope's Theologian, as it is more commonly called. This office has been held uninterruptedly by members of the order from the founder's time to the present day. On 15 August, 1217, he gathered the brethren about him at Prouille to deliberate on the affairs of the order. He had determined upon the heroic plan of dispersing his little band of seventeen unformed followers over all europe. The result proved the wisdom of an act which, to the eye of human prudence at least, seemed little short of suicidal. To facilitate the spread of the order, Honorius III, on 11 Feb., 1218, addressed a Bull to all archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priors, requesting their favour on behalf of the Order of Preachers. By another Bull, dated 3 Dec., 1218, Honorius III bestowed upon the order the church of Saint Sixtus in Rome. Here, amid the tombs of the Appian Way, was founded the first monastery of the order in Rome. Shortly after taking possession of Saint Sixtus, at the invitation of Honorius, Saint Dominic begin the somewhat difficult task of restoring the pristine observance of religious discipline among the various Roman communities of women. In a comparatively short time the work was accomplished, to the great satisfaction of the pope. His own career at the University of Palencia, and the practical use to which he had put it in his encounters with the Albigenses, as well as his keen appreciation of the needs of the time, convinced the saint that to ensure the highest efficiency of the work of the apostolate, his followers should be afforded the best educational advantages obtainable. It was for this reason that on the dispersal of the brethren at Prouille he dispatched Matthew of France and two companions to Paris. A foundation was made in the vicinity of the university, and the friars took possession in October, 1217. Matthew of France was appointed superior, and Michael de Fabra was placed in charge of the studies with the title of Lecturer. On 6 August of the following year, Jean de Barastre, dean of Saint-Quentin and professor of theology, bestowed on the community the hospice of Saint-Jaques, which he had built for his own use. Having effected a foundation at the University of Paris, Saint Dominic next determined upon a settlement at the University of Bologna. Bertrand of Garrigua, who had been summoned from Paris, and John of Navarre, set out from Rome, with letters from Pope Honorius, to make the desired foundation. On their arrival at Bologna, the church of Santa Maria della Mascarella was placed at their disposal. So rapidly did the Roman community of Saint Sixtus grow that the need of more commodious quarters soon became urgent. Honorius, who seemed to delight in supplying every need of the order and furthering its interests to the utmost of his power, met the emergency by bestowing on Saint Dominic the basilica of Santa Sabina.

Towards the end of 1218, having appointed Reginald of Orléans his vicar in Italy, the saint, accompanied by several of his brethren, set out for Spain. Bologna, Prouille, Toulouse, and Fanjeaux were visited on the way. From Prouille two of the brethren were sent to establish a convent at Lyons. Segovia was reached just before Christmas. In February of the following year he founded the first monastery of the order in Spain. Turning southward, he established a convent for women at Madrid, similar to the one at Prouille. It is quite probable that on this journey he personally presided over the erection of a convent in connexion with his alma mater, the University of Palencia. At the invitation of the Bishop of Barcelona, a house of the order was established in that city. Again bending his steps towards Rome he recrossed the Pyrenees and visited the foundations at Toulouse and Paris. During his stay in the latter place he caused houses to be erected at Limoges, Metz, Reims, Poitiers, and Orléans, which in a short time became centres of Dominican activity. From Paris he directed his course towards Italy, arriving in Bologna in July, 1219. Here he devoted several months to the religious formation of the brethren he found awaiting him, and then, as at Prouille, dispersed them over Italy. Among the foundations made at this time were those at Bergamo, Asti, Verona, Florence, Brescia, and Faenza. From Bologna he went to Viterbo. His arrival at the papal court was the signal for the showering of new favours on the order. Notable among these marks of esteem were many complimentary letters addressed by Honorius to all those who had assisted the Fathers in their vinous foundations. In March of this same year Honorius, through his representatives, bestowed upon the order the church of San Eustorgio in Milan. At the same time a foundation at Viterbo was authorized. On his return to Rome, towards the end of 1219, Dominic sent out letters to all the convents announcing the first general chapter of the order, to be held at Bologna on the feast of the following Pentecost. Shortly before, Honorius III, by a special Brief, had conferred upon the founder the title of Master General, which till then he had held only by tacit consent. At the very first session of the chapter in the following spring the saint startled his brethren by offering his resignation as master general. It is needless to say the resignation was not accepted and the founder remained at the head of the institute till the end of his life.

Soon after the close of the chapter of Bologna, Honorius III addressed letters to the abbeys and priories of San Vittorio, Sillia, Mansu, Floria, Vallombrosa, and Aquila, ordering that several of their religious be deputed to begin, under the leadership of Saint Dominic, a preaching crusade in Lombardy, where heresy had developed alarming proportions. For some reason or other the plans of the pope were never realized. The promised support failing, Dominic, with a little band of his own brethren, threw himself into the field, and, as the event proved, spent himself in an effort to bring back the heretics to their allegiance to the Church. It is said that 100,000 unbelievers were converted by the preaching and the miracles of the saint. According to Lacordaire and others, it was during his preaching in Lombardy that the saint instituted the Militia of Jesus Christ, or the third order, as it is commonly called, consisting of men and women living in the world, to protect the rights and property of the Church. Towards the end of 1221 Saint Dominic returned to Rome for the sixth and last time. Here he received many new and valuable concessions for the order. In January, February, and March of 1221 three consecutive Bulls were issued commending the order to all the prelates of the Church-. The thirtieth of May, 1221, found him again at Bologna presiding over the second general chapter of the order. At the close of the chapter he set out for Venice to visit Cardinal Ugolino, to whom he was especially indebted for many substantial acts of kindness. He had scarcely returned to Bologna when a fatal illness attacked him. He died after three weeks of sickness, the many trials of which he bore with heroic patience. In a Bull dated at Spoleto, 13 July, 1234, Gregory IX made his cult obligatory throughout the Church.

The life of St. Dominic was one of tireless effort in the, service of god. While he journeyed from place to place he prayed and preached almost uninterruptedly. - His penances were of such a nature as to cause the brethren, who accidentally discovered them. to fear the effect upon his life. While his charity was boundless he never permitted it to interfere with the stern sense of duty that guided every action of his life. If he abominated heresy and laboured untiringly for its extirpation it was because he loved truth and loved the souls of those among whom he laboured. He never failed to distinguish between sin and the sinner. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if this athlete of Christ, who had conquered himself before attempting the reformation of others, was more than once chosen to show forth the power of God. The failure of the fire at Fanjeaux to consume the dissertation he had employed against the heretics, and which was thrice thrown into the flames; the raising to life of Napoleone Orsini; the appearance of the annals in the refectory of Saint Sixtus in response to his prayers, are but a few of the supernatural happenings by which God was pleased to attest the eminent holiness of His servant. We are not surprised, therefore, that, after signing the Bull of canonization on 13 July, 1234, Gregory IX declared that he no more doubted the saintliness of Saint Dominic than he did that of Saint Peter and Saint Paul.

JOHN B. O'CONNER

Dominical Letter

A device adopted from the Romans by the old chronologers to aid them in finding the day of the week corresponding to any given date, and indirectly to facilitate the adjustment of the "Proprium de Tempore" to the "Proprium Sanctorum" when constructing the ecclesiastical calendar for any year. The Church, on account of her complicated system of movable and immovable feasts (see CHRISTIAN CALENDAR), has from an early period taken upon herself as a special charge to regulate the measurement of time. To secure uniformity in the observance of feasts and fasts, she began, even in the patristic age, to supply a computus, or system of reckoning, by which the relation of the solar and lunar years might be accommodated and the celebration of Easter determined. Naturally she adopted the astronomical methods then available, and these methods and the methodology belonging to them, having become traditional, are perpetuated in a measure to this day, even the reform of the calendar, in the prolegomena to the Breviary and Missal.

The Romans were accustomed to divide the year into nundinae, periods of eight days; and in their marble fasti, or calendars, of which numerous specimens remain, they used the first eight letters of the alphabet to mark the days of which each period was composed. When the Oriental seven-day period, or week, was introduced in the time of Augustus, the first seven letters of the alphabet were employed in the same way to indicate the days of this new division of time. In fact, fragmentary calendars on marble still survive in which both a cycle of eight letters-A to H-indicating nundinae, and a cycle of seven letters -A to G-indicating weeks, are used side by side (see "Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum", 2nd ed., I, 220. -The same peculiarity occurs in the Philocalian Calendar of A.D. 356, ibid., p. 256). This device was imitated by the Christians, and in their calendars the days of the year from 1 January to 31 December were marked with a continuous recurring cycle of seven letters: A, B, C, D, E F, G. A was always set against 1 January, B against 2 January, C against 3 January, and so on. Thus F fell to 6 January, G to 7 January; A again recurred on 8 January, and also, consequently, on 15 January, 22 January, and 29 January. Continuing in this way, 30 January was marked with a B, 31 January with a C, and 1 February with a D. Supposing this to be carried on through all the days of an ordinary year (i. e. not a leap year), it will be found that a D corresponds to 1 March, G to 1 April, B to 1 May, E to 1 June, G to 1 July, C to 1 August, F to 1 September, A to 1 October, D to 1 November, and P to 1 December -- a result which Durandus recalled by the following distich:

Now, as a moment's reflection shows, if 1 January is a Sunday, all the days marked by A will also be Sundays; If 1 January is a Saturday, Sunday will fall on 2 January which is a B, and all the other days marked B will be Sundays; if 1 January is a Monday, then Sunday will not come until 7 January, a G, and all the days marked G will be Sundays. This being explained, the Dominical Letter of any year is defined to be that letter of the cycle A, B, C, D, E, F, G, which corresponds to the day upon which the first Sunday (and every subsequent Sunday) falls.

It is plain, however, that when a leap year occurs, a complication is introduced. February has then twenty-nine days. Traditionally, the Anglican and civil calendars added this extra day to the end of the month, while the Catholic ecclesiastical calendar counted 24 February twice. But in either case, 1 March is then one day later in the week than 1 February, or, in other words, for the rest of the year the Sundays come a day earlier than they would- in a common year. This is expressed by saying that a leap year has two Dominical Letters, the second being the letter which precedes that with which the year started. For example, 1 January, 1907, was a Tuesday; the first Sunday fell on 6 January, or an F. F was, therefore, the Dominical Letter for 1907. The first of January, 1908, was a Wednesday, the first Sunday fell on 5 January, and E was the Dominical Letter, but as 1908 was a leap year, its Sundays after February came a day sooner than in a normal year and were D=92s. The year 1908, therefore, had a double Dominical Letter, E-D. In 1909, 1 January was a Friday and the Dominical Letter was C. In 1910 and 1911, 1 January fell respectively on Saturday and Sunday and the Dominical Letters are B and A.

This, of course, is all very simple, but the advantage of tile device lies, like that of an algebraical expression, in its being a mere symbol adaptable to any year. By constructing a table of letters and days of the year, A always being set against I January, we can at once see the relation between the days of the week and the day of any month, if only we know the Dominical Letter. This may always be found by the following rule of De Morgan=92s, which gives the Dominical Letter for any year, or the second Dominical Letter if it be leap year:

1. Add 1 to the given year.
2. Take the quotient found by dividing the given year by 4 (neglecting the remainder).
3. Take 16 from the centurial figures of the given year if that can be done.
4. Take the quotient of III divided by 4 (neglecting the remainder).
5. From the sum of I, II and IV, subtract III.
6. Find the remainder of V divided by 7: this is the number of the Dominical Letter, supposing A, B, C, D, E, F, G to be equivalent respectively to 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0.

For example, to find the Dominical Letter of the year 1913:

Therefore, the Dominical Letter is E.

But the Dominical Letter had another very practical use in the days before the "Ordo divini officii recitandi" was printed annually, and when, consequently, a priest had often to determine the "Ordo" for himself (see CATHOLIC DIRECTORIES). As will be shown in the articles EPACT and EASTER CONTROVERSY, Easter Sunday may be as early as 22 March or as late as 25 April, and there are consequently thirty-five possible days on which it may fall. It is also evident that each Dominical Letter allows five possible dates for Easter Sunday. Thus, in a year whose Dominical Letter is A (i. e. when 1 January is a Sunday), Easter must be either on 26 March, 2 April, 9 April, 16 April, or 23 April, for these are all the Sundays within the defined limits. But according as Easter falls on one or another of these Sundays we shall get a different calendar, and hence there are five, and only five, possible calendars for years whose Dominical Letter is A. Similarly, there are five possible calendars for years whose Dominical Letter is B, five for C, and so on, thirty-five possible combinations in all. Now, advantage was taken of this principle in the arrangement of the old Pye or directorium which preceded our present "Ordo". The thirty-five possible calendars were all included therein and numbered, respectively, primum A, secundum A, tertium A, etc.; primum B, secundum B, etc. Hence for anyone wishing to use the Pye the first thing to determine was the Dominical Letter of the year, and then by means of the Golden Number or the Epact, and by the aid of a simple table, to find which of the five possible calendars assigned to that Dominical Letter belonged to the year in question. Such a table as that just referred to, but adapted to the reformed calendar and in more convenient shape, will be found at the beginning of every Breviary and Missal under the heading, "Tabula Paschalis nova reformata".

The Dominical Letter does not seem to have been familiar to Bede in his "De Temporum Ratione," but in its place he adopts a similar device of seven numbers which he calls concurrentes (De Temp. Rat., cap. liii). This was of Greek origin. The Concurrents are numbers denoting the days of the week on which 24 March falls in the successive years of the solar cycle, 1 standing for Sunday, 2 (feria secunda) for Monday, 3 for Tuesday, and so on. It is sufficient here to state that the relation between the Concurrents and the Dominical Letter is the following:

Concurrents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Concurrent 1 = F (Dominical Letter)

Concurrent 2 = E

Concurrent 3 = D

Concurrent 4 = C

Concurrent 5 = B

Concurrent 6 = A

Concurrent 7 = G

HERBERT THURSTON

The Dominican Republic

(SAN DOMINGO, SANTO DOMINGO).

The Dominican Republic is the eastern, and much larger political division of the island now comprehensively known as Haiti, which is the second in size of the Greater Antilles. The territory of this republic, estimated at 18,045 square miles, is divided from that of the Republic of Haiti, on the west, by a serpentine line running from the mouth of the Yaqui River, on the north coast, to a point not far from Point Beata, on the south. Its northern shores are washed by the Atlantic Ocean, its southern by the Caribbean Sea, while on the east the Mona Passage separates it from the Island of Porto Rico. In proportion to its size, San Domingo is much less densely settled than Haiti. Ethnologically, the Dominicans contrast with the Haitians in being a Spanish-speaking people, mostly of mixed negro and European descent, the Haitians being pure negro and speaking French. The climate in San Domingo is in some parts bad, in others remarkably good, notably in and around the city of San Domingo where, in spite of bad sanitation, it is said that "nobody need die of anything but old age". During the dry season, November to March, the mean diurnal variation on the south coast is from 70 to 80 degrees Fahr.; during the rainy seasons (summer and autumn) it is from 80 to 92. These figures, like most statistics of contemporary San Domingo, are necessarily conjectural.

GENERAL HISTORY

From the date of its discovery until the French Revolution, the civil and ecclesiastical history of the territory now occupied by the Dominican Republic are inseparably conjoined. In December, 1492, Christopher Columbus, having failed in his expectation of identifying the island of Cuba with Japan (Cipango), had shaped his course homeward when the accident of prevailing wind brought him in sight of the island he named Hispaniola (Little Spain). On 6 December, 1492, he landed on Môle St. Nicholas (now Haitian territory), then, passing along the north coast of the island to the Bay of Samana, landed again and penetrated inland as far as the summit of Santo Cerro (Holy Hill), where, looking down upon the magnificent upland plain which he named La Vega Real, he planted a wooden cross to commemorate his discovery. His first landing had been unopposed, but at the eastern end of Hispaniola the Ciguayen tribe received the Spaniards with a volley of arrows, from which adventure the gulf now called Samana was named by Columbus Golfo de la Flechas (Gulf of Arrows). The island had been known to its inhabitants as Haiti; there were of the Arawak stock, and were accustomed to fight against the piratical Caribs, though themselves of a rather pacific character. That they worshipped idols appears from the fact that the first Bishop of Santo Domingo sent an idol of aboriginal workmanship as a present to Leo X (Moroni, Dizionario, XX, s. v. Domingo).

The first Spanish settlement, Isadora, was on the north coast. But in 1496, when Miguel Dias reported to the admiral the existence of much gold in and about the Hayna River, as well as the remarkable salubrity of the country of the Ozamas, on the south coast, Isabella, which had been found unhealthy, was abandoned. On the mouth of the Ozamas River, and on its left bank, Bartolomé Colón began the settlement of Nueva Isabella, which was not long afterwards replaced by San Domingo, on the opposite bank. Thus, the present capital of the Dominican Republic, the oldest Christian city in the New World, was already established as the capital of the "New Spains" in the last year of the fifteenth century. Leo X erected the see of San Domingo -- the mother church of all Spanish America, and the oldest bishopric in the New World -- in 1513. In 1514, under Alessandro Geraldini, its first bishop, the present cathedral church of San Domingo was begun; it was completed in 1540. In this cathedral, about 200 feet in length by 90 in width, the remains of several members of the Columbus family -- and possibly even of the great admiral himself -- still repose; here, too, is still reverently preserved a fragment of the cross which Columbus set up on Santo Cerro, and about which miraculous legends have grown up in the course of four centuries. The catalogue of adelantados of the island includes the names of Diego Colón (immediate successor to his uncle Bartolomé), of Bobadillo, and Ovando. There Columbus himself lived for many years, there he was imprisoned by his enemies, and thence he set out on his last voyage to Spain. To San Domingo Ojedo returned from his last voyage of discovery and conquest in 1500. His grave is still shown in the main doorway of the Franciscan church. In 1547 Paul III made San Domingo the metropolitan see of the New World. Meanwhile houses of the Friars Preachers, the Franciscans, and the Mercedarians sprang up rapidly, and in this West Indian port, the population of which could never have exceeded 20,000, the ruins of not fewer than half a dozen convents are still to be seen. The Jesuit college, now used as a theatre, was not founded until a later period.

While all this activity lasted, the seeds of social and political decay were being sown in Hispaniola. The aborigines were either killed or driven into hiding among the Cibao mountains; the importation of negro slaves became a regular institution. The Spanish settlers were men of the losing, not the conquering type; their blood mingled with that of the negro and, in some degree, the aboriginal, to produce the San Domingan of modern times. In 1586 Francis Drake drove the Spanish garrison out of San Domingo and burned section after section of the city until a ransom of 30,000 crowns was paid to him. In the next century French adventurers -- the original boucaniers -- began to use the little island of Tortuga, near the north-west coast of Hispaniola, as a piratical rendezvous; from Trotuga they gradually spread over the eastern end of Hispaniola, creating a claim of occupation which Spain recognized in the treaty of Ryswick (1691). It was in April, 1655, that an English force, conveyed thither in the fleet commanded by Admiral Penn, was driven away, after affecting a landing about thirty miles west of the capital. The natural resources of Hispaniola still enriched Spain, and the mint at Concepcion de la Vega continued to coin gold from the Hayna. After the peace of Ryswick, Hispaniola might almost have been forgotten, if an English cabinet-maker had not (about the year 1766), discovered the value of mahogany. The demand, first created by a shipment from Jamaica, was largely supplied by the Spanish island.

The French Revolution reacted upon Hispaniola. The white and mulattos of San Domingo, under Spanish leaders, attempted to restore the old regime in the Spanish colony, but in 1795 all Hispaniola was ceded to France. The Spanish authority transferred San Domingo to the representative of the French republic, who was the mulatto General Toussaint L'Ouverture. Until the Treaty of Paris (1814), the French whites, the white and colored partisans of Spain, the blacks of Haiti, and now and then a British expeditionary force fought for supremacy in San Domingo. The treacherous capture of L'Ouverture, and his mysterious death in prison at Besançon, in 1803, were followed by a general massacre of the whites in Haiti in March, 1804. The Haitian blacks now compelled the submission of San Domingo to the authority of their first president, Dessalines. At last, in 1814, the Treaty of Paris restored to Spain her oldest possession in the New World.

ACTUAL CONDITIONS

Out of the political chaos, which had lasted for more than half a century, arose the present Dominican Republic. Its constitution was proclaimed 18 December, 1844, and its first president was Pedro Santana; it was recognized by France in 1848, and by Great Britain in 1850. An attempt to restore Spanish rule, in 1861, in defiance of the Monroe doctrine, ended with a final Spanish evacuation in 1865. In 1897 the foreign debt of the republic had reached the amount of more than $21,000,000, the interest on which was supposed to be secured by customs receipts; following a default of interest (1 April, 1899), the Government of the United States intervened to obtain an equitable settlement, and its efforts led to the convention of 1905 (ratified in 1907), by which an agent, always a citizen of the United States, is to be permanently empowered to act as general receiver of the Dominican customs, in the interest of the foreign bondholders. Since 9 July 1905, all lands owned by the Dominican Government have been open for settlement, free for ten years, and after that at a rent of five cents per acre. Although there can be little doubt that the national resources of the republic still include large quantities of gold, silver, and copper ore, and even iron, the actual products are only vegetable: sugar (183,759 acres under cultivation in 1906); tobacco (nearly 15,000,000 pounds of leaf exported annually); cocoa; coffee. The actual timber output is insignificant. In 1907 the total length of railroad was 112 miles.

The Constitution of the Dominican Republic is said to be modelled on that of Venezuela; the president, elected for four years, is assisted by a council of ministers; the legislature is a single chamber elected by popular vote in twenty-four departments. The supreme court of the republic (a president and four judges) is appointed by the national congress, its "minister fiscal", however, being appointed by the chief executive; for courts of first instance, the republic is divided into eleven judicial districts, each presided over by an alcalde. By the terms of the Constitution education is gratuitous and compulsory.

The ancient city of San Domingo (population 16,000), is still the seat of the civil government, as well as the see of the archbishop, who, however, no longer has any suffragans. The relations between the Church and the State are (1908) very cordial. The Constitution of the Republic, in which religious liberty is an article, guarantees the church freedom of action which, nevertheless is curtailed by the law providing that the civil solemnization of marriages must precede the canonical. The municipal cemeteries are consecrated in accordance with the Church's requirements, though in some important centres of population there are non-Catholic cemeteries besides. In the Dominican Republic (with which the Archdiocese of San Domingo is coextensive) there are 600,000 Catholics, upwards of 1,000 Protestants, and very few Jews, while the Masonic lodges number about thirteen. The total number of parishes is 56, each with its own church, in addition to which there are 13 chapels and 82 mission stations. The (ecclesiastical) Conciliar seminary, at the capital, is under the care of the Eudist Fathers (Congregation of Jesus and Mary) who administer the cathedral parish. Another college under ecclesiastical control is that of San Sebastian in La Vega. A diocesan congregation of religious women numbers 30 members; these sisters, who have charge of a hospital, care for orphan children and the infirm aged.

KEIM, San Domingo (Philadelphia, 1870); HAZARD, Santo Domingo, Past and Present (New York, 1873); DEL MONTE y TEJADA, Historia de S. Domingo (Madrid, 1860); MORONI, Dixionario, s. v. Domingo; SCHOMBERGE, Notes on St. Domingo in Proceedings of British Association, 1851; Statesman's Year-Book, 1908.

E. MACPHERSON

Blessed Giovanni Dominici

(BANCHINI or BACCHINI was his family name).

Cardinal, statesman and writer, born at Florence, 1356; died at Buda, 10 July, 1420. He entered the Dominican Order at Santa Maria Novella in 1372 after having been cured, through the intercession of St. Catherine of Siena, of an impediment of speech for which he had been refused admission to the order two years before. On his return from Paris, where he completed his theological studies, he laboured as professor and preacher for twelve years at Venice. With the sanction of the master general, Blessed Raymond of Capua, he established convents of strict observance of his order at Venice (1391) and Fiesole (1406), and founded the convent of Corpus Christi at Venice for the Dominican Nuns of the Strict Observance. He was sent as envoy of Venice to the conclave of 1406 in which Gregory XII was elected; the following year the pope, whose confessor and counsellor he was, appointed him Archbishop of Ragusa, created him cardinal in 1408 and sent him as ambassador to Hungary, to secure the adhesion of Sigismund to the pope. At the Council of Constance Dominici read the voluntary resignation which Gregory XII had adopted, on his advice, as the surest means of ending the schism. Martin V appointed him legate to Bohemia on 19 July, 1418, but he accomplished little with the followers of Hus, owing to the supineness of King Wenceslaus. He was declared blessed by Gregory XVI in 1832 and his feast is observed 10 June. Dominici was not only a prolife writer on spiritual subjects but also a graceful poet, as his many vernacular hymns, or Laudi, show. His "Regola del governo di cura familiare", written between 1400 and 1405, is a valuable pedagogical work (edited by Salvi, Florence, 1860) which treats, in four books, of the faculties of the soul, the powers and senses of the body, the uses of earthly goods, and the education of children. This last book has been translated into German by Rosler (Herder's Bibliothek der katholischen Pädagogik, VII, Freiburg, 1894). His "Lucula Noctis" (R. Coulon, O.P., Latin text of the fifteenth century with an introduction, Paris, 1908) in reply to a letter of Nicola di Piero Salutati, is the most important treatise of that day on the study of the pagan authors. Dominici does not flatly condemn classical studies, but strenuously opposes the paganizing humanism of the day.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Dominic of Prussia

A Carthusian monk and ascetical writer, born in Poland, 1382; died at the monastery of St. Alban near Trier, 1461. According to the account he wrote of himself his first teacher was the parish priest, a pious Dominican; later he was a student at the University of Cracow where he was noted for his intelligence. Falling into bad habits he led a vagabond life until twenty-five years of age, when he reformed through the influence of Adolf of Essen, prior of the Carthusian monastery of St. Alban, near Trier. Dominic now became a Carthusian, entering the order in 1409. His monastic life was one of severe penance and religious fervour. The spiritual favours he received were numerous, and many visions are ascribed to him. Among the positions he filled were those of master of novices at Mainz and vicar of the monastery of St. Alban, where he died. As an author Dominic composed seventeen treatises, which have been preserved in various libraries. In the "Libri duo experientiarum" he relates the events of his own life; the "Tractatus de Contempu mundi", "Remedium tentationum", "De verae obedientiae", and "Sonus epulantis" he prepared during his solitary repasts. A further work is his "Letters of Direction".

Dominic of Prussia is frequently mentioned in the discussions as to the origin of the Rosary, and what has been improperly called "the Carthusian Rosary" is ascribed to him. To the one hundred fifty Ave Marias which in those days formed the "Psalter of Mary" he had the thought of adding meditations on the life of Christ and of His Holy Mother. As in his time the Ave Maria terminated with the words; "Fructus ventris tui, Jesus", he joined to each sentence to recall to mind the mystery, such as "quem Angelo nuntiante de Sancto Spiritu concepisti", "quo concepto, in montana ad Elizabeth ivisti", etc. Both Dominic and his friend Adolf sought to spread the use of this form of prayer in the Carthusian Order and among the laity. For these reasons it is held by some authors that the "Psalter" of Dominic was the form, or one of the original forms, from which the present Rosary developed.

AMBROSE MOUGEL

Dominic of the Mother of God

(Called in secular life Domenico Barberi)

A member of the Passionist Congregation and theologian, b. near Viterbo, Italy, 22 June, 1792; d. near Reading, England, 27 August, 1849. His parents were peasants and died while Dominic was still a small boy. There were six children, and Dominic, the youngest child, was adopted by his maternal uncle, Bartolomeo Pacelli. As a boy he was employed to take care of sheep, and when he grew older he did farm work. He was taught his letters by a kind Capuchin priest, and learned to read from a country lad of his own age; although he read all the books he could obtain, he had no regular education until he entered the Congregation of the Passion. He was deeply religious from childhood, felt himself distinctly called to join the institute he entered, and believed that God, by a special manifestation, had told him that he was destined to announce the Gospel truth and to bring back stray sheep to the way of salvation.

He was received into the Congregation of the Passion in 1814, and ordained priest, 1 March, 1818. After completing the regular course of studies, he taught philosophy and theology to the students of the congregation as lector for a period of ten years. He then held in Italy the offices of rector, provincial consultor, and provincial, and fulfilled the duties of these positions with ability. At the same time he constantly gave missions and retreats. He founded the first Passionist Retreat in Belgium at Ere near Tournai in 1840; in 1842, after twenty-eight years of effort, he established the Passionists in England, at Aston Hall, Staffordshire. During the seven years of his missionary life in England he established three houses of the congregation. He died at a small railway station near Reading and was buried under the high altar of St. Anne's Retreat, Sutton, St. Helen's. Among the remarkable converts whom he received into the Church may be mentioned John Dobree Dalgairns, John Henry Newman, and Newman's two companions, E. S. Bowles and Richard Stanton, all of whom were afterwards distinguished Oratorians. The reception in 1845 of Newman and his friends must have been the greatest happiness of his life. In 1846 Father Dominic received the Hon. George Spencer, in religion Father Ignatius of St. Paul, into the Congregation of the Passion.

Among Father Dominic's works are: courses of philosophy and moral theology; a volume on the Passion of Our Lord; a work for nuns on the Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin, "Divina Paraninfa"; a refutation of de Lamennais; three series of sermons; various controversial and ascetical works. In 1841 he addressed a Latin letter to the professors of Oxford in which he answered the objections and explained the difficulties of Anglicans. An English translation of the letter is given in the appendix to the life of Father Dominic by Father Pius Devine.

Lives of Father Dominic: Italian, by Padre Felippo (1807); Lucca de San Giuseppe (Genoa, 1877); English, by Pius Devine (London, 1898); Camm, Father Dominic and the Conversion of England in Catholic Truth Society publications (1900); Father Dominic's letters and correspondence concerning his mission to England are published as a supplement to the 3rd vol. of the Oratorian life of St. Paul of the Cross (London, 1853).

Arthur Devine.

Marco Antonio de Dominis

Dalmatian ecclesiastic, apostate, and man of science, b. on the island of Arbe, off the coast of Dalmatia, in 1566; d. in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, Rome, September, 1624. Educated at the Illyrian College at Loreto and at the University of Padua, he entered the Society of Jesus and taught mathematics, logic, and rhetoric at Padua and Brescia. On leaving the Jesuits (1596), he was, through imperial influence, appointed Bishop of Zengg (Segna, Seng) and Modrus in Dalmatia (Aug., 1600), and transferred (Nov., 1602) to the archiepiscopal See of Spalato. He sided with Venice, in whose territory his see was situated, during the quarrel between Paul V and the Republic (1606-7). That fact, combined with a correspondence with Fra Paolo Sarpi and conflicts with his clergy and fellow-bishops which culminated in the loss of an important financial case in the Roman Curia, led to the resignation of his office in favour of a relative and his retirement to Venice. Threatened by the Inquisition, he prepared to apostatize, entered into communication with the English ambassador to Venice, Sir Henry Wotton, and having been assured of a welcome, left for England in 1616. On his way there, he published at Heidelberg a violent attack on Rome: "Scogli del Cristiano naufragio", afterwards reprinted in England. He was received with open arms by James I, who quartered him upon Archbishop Abbot of Canterbury, called on the other bishops to pay him a pension, and granted him precedence after the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. De Dominis wrote a number of anti-Roman sermons, published his often reprinted chief work, "De Republicâ Ecclesiasticâ contra Primatum Papæ (Vol. 1, 1617; vol. II, 1620, London; Vol. III, 1622, Hanover), and took part, as assistant, in the consecration of George Montaigne as Bishop of Lincoln, 14 Dec., 1617. In that same year, James I made him Dean of Windsor and granted him the Mastership of the Savoy.

In 1619 De Dominis published in London the first edition of Fra Paolo Sarpi's "History of the Council of Trent"; the work appeared in Italian, with an anti-Roman title page and letter dedicatory to James I. His vanity, avarice, and irascibility, however, soon lost him his English friends; the projected Spanish marriage of Prince Charles made him anxious about the security of his position in England, and the election of Gregory XV (9 Feb., 1621) furnished him with an occasion of intimating, through Catholic diplomatists in England, his wish to return to Rome. The king's anger was aroused when De Dominis announced his intention (16 Jan., 1622), and Star-Chamber proceedings for illegal correspondence with Rome were threatened. Eventually he was allowed to depart, but his chests of hoarded money were seized by the king's men, and only restored in response to a piteous personal appeal to the king. Once out of England his attacks upon the English Church were as violent as had been those on the See of Rome, and in "Sui Reditus ex Anglii Consilium" (Paris, 1623) he recanted all he had written in his "Consilium Profectionis" (London, 1616), declaring that he had deliberately lied in all that he had said against Rome. After a stay of six months in Brussels he proceeded to Rome, where he lived on a pension assigned him by the pope. On the death of Gregory XV (8 July, 1623) the pension ceased, and irritation loosened his tongue. Coming into conflict with the Inquisition he was declared a relapsed heretic, was confined to the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, and there died a natural death. His case was continued after his death, his heresy declared manifest, and his body burned together with his works on 21 Dec., 1624.

In 1611 he published, at Venice, a scientific work entitled: "Tractatus de radiis visus et lucis in vitris, perspectivis et iride", in which, according to Newton, he was the first to develop the theory of the rainbow, by drawing attention to the fact that in each raindrop the light undergoes two refractions and an intermediate reflection. His claim to that distinction is, however, disputed in favour of Descartes.

     Much information may be obtained from his own works; Goodman, The Court of King James the First, ed. Brewer (London, 1839), I, 336-354; Fuller, Church History of Britain, ed. Nichols (London, 1868), III, 332-343; Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences (London, 1837), II, 347 sqq.; Perry in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; da Reumont, Beitrage sur ital. Geschichte (1857), VI, 315-329; Reusch, Index d. verbot. Bücher, II, 402, 904.

Edward Myers

Dominus Vobiscum

An ancient form of devout salutation, incorporated in the liturgy of the Church, where it is employed as a prelude to certain formal prayers. Its origin is evidently Scriptural, being clearly borrowed from Ruth, ii, 4, and II Par., xv, 2. The same idea is also suggested in the New Testament, e. g., in Matt., xxviii, 20: "Ecce ego vobiscum sum", etc. The ecclesiastical usage dates probably from Apostolic times. Mention of it is made (ch. iii) by the Council of Braga (563). It also appears in the sixth or seventh-century "Sacramentarium Gelasianum". The phrase is pregnant with a deep religious significance; and therefore intensely expressive of the highest and holiest wishes. For is not the presence of the Lord -- the Source of every good and the Author of every best gift -- a certain pledge of Divine protection and a sure earnest of the possession of all spiritual peace and consolation? In the mouth, therefore, of the priest, who acts as the representative and delegate of the Church, in whose name and with whose authority he prays, this deprecatory formula in pre-eminently appropriate. Hence its frequent use in the public prayers of the Church's liturgy. During the Mass it occurs eight times, namely, before the priest ascends the altar, before the two Gospels, the collects, the Offertory, the Preface, the Post-Communion oratio, and the blessing. On four of these occasions the celebrant, whilst saying it, turns to the people, extending and joining his hands; on the other four he remains facing the altar. In the Divine office this formula is said before the principal oratio of each Hour by priests, even in private recitation, because they are supposed to pray in union with, and in behalf of, the Church. Deacons say it only in the absence of a priest or with his permission if present (Van der Stappen, De officio divino, 43), but subdeacons use instead the "Domine exaudi orationem meam". Contrary to general usage, the "Dominus Vobiscum" does not precede the prayer of the Blessed Sacrament before Benediction is given. Gardellini (Comment. in Inst. Clem., =1531, n. 5) explains this anomaly on the ground that the blessing with the Sacred Host in the monstrance effectively contains all that is implied in the formula. Bishops use the "Pax Vobis" (q.v.) before the collects in Masses where the Gloria is said. The response to the "Dominus Vobiscum" is "Et cum spiritu tuo" (cf. II Tim., iv, 22; Gal., vi, 18; Phil., iv, 23). Formerly this answer was rendered back with one voice by the entire congregation. Among the Greeks there is a corresponding form "Pax omnibus" (Liturgy of St. Basil). The Council of Braga, already mentioned, ordained (Mansi, IX, 777) that priests, as well as bishops, to whom alone the Priscillianist sought to restrict it, should adopt this formula.

SAINT PETER DAMIAN, treatise on the "Dominus Vobiscum" in P.L., CXLV, 231 sqq.; ANGELUS ROCCA, De Salutatione Sacerdotis in Missa et in divinis officiis, I, 236, in his Thesaurus Antiquitatum (2nd ed., Rome, 1745); BONA, Rerum Liturgicarum Libri duo (Turin, 1747), II, v; GUHR in Kirchenlex., s.v.; VAN DER STAPPEN, De officio Divino (Mechlin, 1904); BERNARD, Cours de Liturgie Romaine: Le Breviarire (Paris, 1887), II, 168-73; KRULL in KRAUS, Real-Encyk., s.v.

PATRICK MORRISROE

Domitian

(Titus Flavius Domitianus).

Roman emperor and persecutor of the Church, son of Vespasian and younger brother and successor of the Emperor Titus; b. 24 Oct., a.d. 51, and reigned from 81 to 96. In spite of his private vices he set himself up as a reformer of morals and religion. He was the first of the emperors to deify himself during his lifetime by assuming the title of "Lord and God". After the revolt of Saturninus (93) he organized a series of bloodthirsty proscriptions against all the wealthy and noble families. A conspiracy, in which his wife joined, was formed against him, and he was murdered, 18 Sept., 96.

When the Acts of Nero's reign were reversed after his death, an exception was made as to the persecution of the Christians (Tertullian, Ad Nat., i, 7). The Jewish revolt brought upon them fresh unpopularity, and the subsequent destruction of the Holy City deprived them of the last shreds of protection afforded them by being confounded with the Jews. Hence Domitian in his attack upon the aristocratic party found little difficulty in condemning such as were Christians. To observe Jewish practices was no longer lawful; to reject the national religion, without being able to plead the excuse of being a Jew, was atheism. On one count or the other, as Jews or as atheists, the Christians were liable to punishment. Among the more famous martyrs in this Second Persecution were Domitian's cousin, Flavius Clemens, the consul, and M' Acilius Glabrio who had also been consul. Flavia Domitilla, the wife of Flavius, was banished to Pandataria. But the persecution was not confined to such noble victims. We read of many others who suffered death or the loss of their goods (Dio Cassius, LXVII, iv). The book of the Apocalypse was written in the midst of this storm, when many of the Christians had already perished and more were to follow them (St. Irenæus, Adv. Hæres., V, xxx). Rome, "the great Babylon", "was drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus" (Apoc., xvii, 5, 6; ii, 10, 13; vi, 11; xiii, 15; xx, 4). It would seem that participation in the feasts held in honour of the divinity of the tyrant was made the test for the Christians of the East. Those who did not adore the "image of the beast" were slain. The writer joins to his sharp denunciation of the persecutors' words of encouragement for the faithful by foretelling the downfall of the great harlot "who made drunk the earth with the wine of her whoredom", and steeped her robe in their blood. St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians was also writtens about this time; here, while the terrible trials of the Christians are spoken of, we do not find the same denunciations of the persecutors. The Roman Church continued loyal to the empire, and sent up its prayers to God that He would direct the rulers and magistrates in the exercise of the power committed to their hands (Clem., Ep. ad Cor., c. lxi; cf. St. Paul, Rom., xiii, 1; I Pet., ii, 13). Before the end of his reign Domitian ceased to persecute. (See Persecutions .)

      Eusebius, H. E.., III, xvii sqq. in P.G., XX; IrenÆus, Adv. Hæreses, V in P.G., VII; Allard, Hist. des Persécutions pendant les deux premiers siècles (Paris, 1892); Ten Lectures on the Martyrs (tr. London, 1907); Le Christianisme et l'Empire Romain (Paris, 1898).

T.B. Scannell

Domitiopolis

A titular see of Isauria in Asia Minor. The former name of this city is unknown; it was called Domitiopolis or Dometioupolis after L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (Ramsay, in Revue numismatique, 1894, 168 sqq.). Ptolemy (V, vii, 5) places it in Cilicia; according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus (De themat., I, 15) it was one of the ten cities of the Isaurian Decapolis (cf. Georgius Cyprius, ed. Gelzer, 852). It figures in Parthey's "Notitiæ episcopatuum", I and III, and in Gelzer's "Nova Tactica", 1618, as a suffragan of Seleucia. Lequien (Oriens christ., II, 1023) mentions five bishops, from 451 to 879. Domitiopolis is to-day Dindebol, a village on the Ermenek Su, in the vilayet of Adana (cf. Sterrett, in Papers of the American School, Athens, III, 80).

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Domnus Apostolicus

(DOMINUS APOSTOLICUS)

A title applied to the pope, which was in most frequent use between the sixth and the eleventh centuries. The pope is styled Apostolic because he occupies an Apostolic see, that is, one founded by an Apostle, as were those of Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth, etc. (cf. Tertullian, De præscript., xxxvi). Rome being the only Apostolic Church of the West, Sedes apostolica meant simply the Roman See, and Domnus Apostolicus the Bishop of Rome. In Gaul, however, as early as the fifth century the expression sedes apostolica was applied to any episcopal see, bishops being successors of the Apostles (cf. Sidonius Apollinaris, Epp., lib. VI, i, etc.). By the sixth century the term was in general use, and many letters from the Merovingian kings are addressed Domnis sanctis et apostolicâ sede dignissimis. Thus the bishops of Gaul were given the title of Domnus Apostolicus (cf. Venantius Fortunatus, "Vita S. Mart.", IV; "Formulæ Marculfi", II, xxxix, xliii, xlix). Many examples are also found in wills and deeds (e.g. P.L., LXXX, 1281, 1314, etc.), and one occurs in a letter of introduction given by Charlemagne to St. Boniface (Epp. Bonifac., xi). However, in the Acts of Charlemagne and of the councils held during his time, even outside the Frankish Empire, as in England, the term Domnus Apostolicus, in its exact usage, meant simply the pope. Perhaps the only example of it found in Greek authors is in the second letter of Theodore the Studite to Leo III, kyrio apostoliko. Long before this, however, the word Apostolicus alone had been employed to designate the pope. Probably the earliest example is in the list of popes compiled at the time of Pope Vigilius (died 555), which begins "Incipiunt nomina Apostolicorum" (P.L., LXXVIII, 1405). The expression recurs frequently in documents of the Carlovingian kings, as well as in Anglo-Saxon writings. Claude of Turin gives a curious explanation — Apostoli custos. At the Council of Reims held in 1049 the Bishop of Compostela was excommunicated "quia contra fas sibi vendicaret culmen apostolici nominis" (because he wrongly claimed for himself the prestige of an Apostolic name), thinking himself the successor of St. James the Greater, and it was thereupon laid down "quod solus Romanus Pontifex universalis Ecclesiæ Primas esset et Apostolicus" (that only the pontiff of the Roman See was primate of the universal Church and Apostolicus). To-day the title is found only in the Litany of the Saints. There are also the expressions apostolicatus (pontificate) and the ablative absolute apostolicante (during the pontificate of). It is to be noted that in ecclesiastical usage the abbreviated form domnus signifies a human ruler as against Dominus, the Divine Lord. Thus at meals monastic grace was asked from the superior in the phrase Jube Domne benedicere, i. e.; "Be pleased sir to give the blessing."

DU CANGE. Gloss. med. et infim. Lat., ed. FAVRE (Paris-Niort, 1833-88), s. v.

U. BENIGNI.

Patrick Donahoe

Publisher, born at Munnery, County Cavan, Ireland, 17 March, 1811; died at Boston, U.S.A., 18 March, 1901. He emigrated to Boston when ten years of age with his parents, and at fourteen was apprenticed to a printer. He worked on "The Jesuit" when that paper was started by Bishop Fenwick in 1832, and after the bishop relinquished its ownership, he carried it on for some time with H.L. Devereaux under the new title of "The Literary and Catholic Sentinel". In 1836 he began the publication of "The Pilot", a weekly paper devoted to Irish American and Catholic interests, which in succeeding years became the organ of Catholic opinion in New England. He established in connection with it a publishing and book-selling house from which were issued a large number of Catholic books. Later he organized a bank. All his ventures proved successful and the wealth he acquired was generously given to advance Catholic interests. The great Boston fire of 1872 destroyed his publishing plant. Another fire in the following year and injudicious loans to friends made him lose so much more that his bank failed in 1876. Archbishop Williams purchased "The Pilot" to help to pay the depositors of the bank, and Mr. Donahoe then started a monthly "Donahoe's Magazine" and an exchange and passenger agency. In 1881 he was able to buy back "The Pilot" and devoted his remaining years to its management. During the Civil War he actively interested himself in the organization of the Irish regiments that volunteered from New England. In 1893 the University of Notre Dame gave him the Laetare Medal for signal services to American Catholic progress.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Donatello Di Betto Bardi

(DONATO DI NICOLÒ DI BETTO BARDI)

One of the great Tuscan sculptors of the Renaissance, born at Florence, c. 1386; died there, 13 Dec., 1466. He was the son of Nicolò di Betto Bardi, and was early apprenticed to a goldsmith to learn design. At the age of seventeen he accompanied his friend Brunellesco to Rome, and the two youths devoted themselves to drawing and to making excavations in their pursuit of the antique. Half the week they spent chiselling for a livelihood. Brunellesco's occupation was architecture; Donatello, though understanding the interrelation of the two arts, always, whether in conjunction with Brunellesco or, as later, with Michelozzo, made sculpture paramount. It is hard to place his work chronologically. While still a mere boy, he carved the wooden crucifix in Santa Croce, Florence; On his return from Rome to Florence he was engaged for years on the statues for Giotto's belfry and the buildings then in progress. For the Campanile he did "The Baptist", "Jeremias", "Habakkuk", a group representing Abraham and Isaac, and the famous "David" called the "Zuccone" (Bald-head), so lifelike that Donatello is said to have himself cried to it, "Why don't you speak?"; for the Duomo, "St. John the Evangelist" and "The Singing-gallery"; for Or San Michele, "St. Peter" and "St. Mark", and the "St. George", which he executed at the order of the Guild of Armourers — Donatello's most ideal and perfect work. The socle-relief of "St. George and the Dragon and the King of Cappadocia's Daughter" is absolutely Greek in simplicity and plastic beauty. Other fine reliefs are the bronze doors for the sacristy of San Lorenzo; the medallions for the ceiling; and the "Annunciation" in the same church, with its noble figures of the Blessed Virgin and the archangel. In the Loggia de' Lanzi is the somewhat ill-proportioned group of "Judith and Holofernes". The marble "David" in the Bargello, uniting the delicacy of the adolescent "Baptist" of Casa Martelli with a classic fashion of wreath-bound hair, seems a link between two of the phases in Donatello's development. Purely Renaissance and yet conceived in the antique spirit are the "Amorino" (Cupid) and the bronze "David" of the National Museum, Florence. Both are instinct with life and the potent vitality of youth, jubilant or contained. Pope John XXIII, a personal friend of the sculptor, died in Florence, 1419. Donatello made his tomb, a recumbent portrait-statue in the baptistery. In the Duomo of Siena he performed the same office for Bishop Pecci. In Siena also he made several rare statuettes and reliefs for the christening-font of San Giovanni. At Prato, for the open-air pulpit of the Duomo, he carved the casement with groups of playing children (putti). He is believed to have been in Rome again in 1433. A tabernacle of the Blessed Virgin in St. Peter's is said to be by Donatello, and also the tombstone of Giovanni Crivelli in Santa Maria in Ara Cœli. In 1443 he went to Padua to build the choir-gallery, and remained there some ten years. First he carved his "Christ on the Cross", the head a marvel of workmanship and expression; then statuettes of the Blessed Virgin, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony, and other saints; also a long series of reliefs for the high altar. While in Padua Donatello was commissioned to make a monument to the Venetian Condottiere (General) Gattamelata (Erasmo de' Narni), and he blocked out the first great equestrian statue since classic times. The last known statue of Donatello is "St. Louis of Toulouse" in the interior of Santa Croce.

Donatello became bedridden in his latter years, and some of his works were completed by his pupils. Piero de' Medici provided for him. Donatello had always been lavish with his fellow-workers and assistants, and took no forethought for himself. His character was one of great openness and simplicity, and he had an ingenuous appreciation of his own value as an artist. Unassuming as he was, his pride of craft and independence of spirit would lead him to destroy a masterpiece at one blow if his modest price were haggled over. He was buried beside his patron Cosimo de' Medici in the church of San Lorenzo in Florence. Donatello was a thorough realist and one of the first modellers with whom character and personality in the subject meant more than loveliness. His Apostles and saints were generally close likenesses of living persons. He had a vivid faculty for individual traits and expression and a method of powerful handling that makes it impossible to forget his creations. In such figures as the "Baptist" and the "Magdalen" of the baptistery of Florence he apparently studied emaciation for its anatomic value; His busts of contemporaries (such as that of Nicolò da Uzzano, "Youth with Breastplate", etc;) look like casts from life. One of the most graceful pieces is the "San Giovannino", a relief of a child, in sandstone, in the Bargello, Florence. Minor works are the "Marzocco" (original in the National Museum, Florence) — the lion, the emblem of Florence, with the fleur-de-lys florencée shield — and the Martelli escutcheon on the staircase of their house.

LÜBKE, History of Sculpture (tr. London, 1872); PERKINS, Handbook of Italian Sculpture (New York, 1883); REA, Donatello (London, 1900); BALCARRES, Donatello (London, 1903); MÜNTZ, Les Précurseurs de la Renaissance (Paris, 1900); VASARI, Lives of the Painters (tr. London, 1881).

M. L. HANDLEY.

Donation

(IN CANON LAW)

Donation, the gratuitous transfer to another of some right or thing. When it consists in placing in the hands of the donee some movable object it is known as a gift of hand (donum manuale, an offering or oblatio, an alms). Properly speaking, however, it is a voluntary contract, verbal or written, by which the donor expressly agrees to give, without consideration, something to the donee, and the latter in an equally express manner accepts the gift. In Roman law and in some modern codes this contract carries with it only the obligation of transferring the ownership of the thing in question; actual ownership is obtained only by the real traditio or handing over of the thing itself, or by the observation of certain juridically prescribed formalities (L. 20, C. De pactis, II, 3). Such codes distinguish between conventional (or imperfect) and perfect donation, i. e. the actual transfer of the thing or right. In some countries the contract itself transfers ownership. A donation is called remunerative when inspired by a sentiment of gratitude for services rendered by the donee. Donations are also described as inter vivos if made while the donor yet lives, and causâ mortis, when made in view or contemplation of death; the latter are valid only after the death of the donor and until then are at all times revocable. They much resemble testaments and codicils. They are, however, on the same footing as donations inter vivos once the donor has renounced his right to revoke. In the pursuit of its end the church needs material aid; it has the right therefore to acquire such aid by donation no less than by other means. In its quality of a perfect and independent society the Church may also decide under what forms and on what conditions it will accept donations made to works of religion (donationes ad pias causas); it pertains to the State to legislate for all other donations.

HISTORY OF ECCLESIASTICAL DONATIONS

Even before the Edict of Milan (313) the Church was free to acquire property by donation either as a juridically recognized association (collegium) or as a society de facto tolerated (note that the right to acquire property by last will and testament dates only from 321 in the reign of Constantine). Nevertheless, the Church was held to observe the pertinent civil legislation, though on this head it enjoyed certain privileges; thus, even before the traditio, or handing over, of the donation to a church or a religious institution, the latter acquired real rights to the same (L. 23, C. De sacrosanctis ecclesiis, I, 2). Moreover, the insinuatio or declaration of the gift before the public authority was required only for donations equivalent in value to 500 solidi (nearly twenty-six hundred dollars) or more, a privilege later on extended to all donations (L. 34, 36, C. De donationibus, VIII, 53). Finally, bishops, priests, and deacons yet under parental power were allowed to dispose freely, even in favour of the Church, of property acquired by them after ordination [L. 33 (34) C. De episcopis et clericis, I, 3]. The Franks, long quite unaccustomed to dispose of their property by will, were on the other hand generous in donations, especially cessiones post obitum, similar to the Roman law donations in view of death but carrying with them the renunciation on the donor's part of his right of revocation; other Frankish donations to the Church reserved the usufruct. The institution known as precaria ecclesiastica was quite favourable to the growth of donations. At the request of the donor the Church granted him the use of the donated object for five years, for his life, or even a use transferable to the heirs of the first occupant. Synods of this epoch assert to some extent the validity of pious donations even when the legal requisites had not been observed, though as a rule they were not omitted. Generally speaking, the consent of the civil authority (princeps) was not indispensable for the acquisition of property by religious corporations. The restrictions known as the "right of amortization" (see MORTMAIN) are of later date, and are the outcome of theories elaborated in the Middle Ages but carried to their logical issue in the modern civil legislation (of Continental countries) concerning biens de mainmorte, or property held by inalienable tenure, i. e. the property of religious corporations, they being perpetual. The Church does not accept such legislation; nevertheless the faithful may act accordingly in order to secure to their donations the protection of the law.

CANONICAL LEGISLATION

Donations are valid and obligatory when made by persons capable of disposing of their property and accepted by the administrators of ecclesiastical institutions. No other formality is required, neither notarial act nor authorization of the civil power. The declaration before the public authority, required by Roman law, is not obligatory in canon law. Nor are the faithful obliged to heed the restrictions which are placed by some modern civil codes in the way of a free disposition of their property. On the other hand the donation must be accepted by the donee; it is not true, as some have maintained, that every donation for works of religion (ad pias causas) implies a vow, i. e. an act in itself obligatory independently of the acceptance of the donee. If the administrators of an ecclesiastical institution refuse to accept a donation, that institution can always obtain in canon law a restitutio in integrum, whereby it is again put in a condition to accept the refused donation. The canonical motives for the revocation or diminution of a donation are the birth of children to the donor and the donatio inofficiosa, or excessive generosity on the latter's part, whereby he diminishes the share of inheritance that legitimately belongs to his children. In both cases, however, the donation is valid in Canon law to the degree in which it respects the legitimate share of the donor's children. It is worthy of note that while ecclesiastical and religious establishments may give alms, they are bound in the matter of genuine donations by the provisions of the canon law concerning the alienation of ecclesiastical property.

CIVIL LEGISLATION

In most European countries the civil authority restricts in three ways the right of the Church to accept donations:

• (1) by imposing the forms and conditions that the civil codes prescribe for donations;
• (2) by reserving to itself the right of saying what institutions shall have civil personality and be thereby authorized to acquire property;
• (3) by exacting the approval of the civil authority, at least for important donations.

Austria recognizes a juridical personality not only in those religious institutions which are charged with the maintenance of public worship, but also, through easily granted approval, in religious associations of any kind. The so-called amortization laws (against the traditional inalienability of tenure on the part of religious corporations) have so far remained only a threat, though the Government reserves the right to establish such legislation. Religious communities, however, are required to make known to the civil authorities all their acquisitions of property. In Germany, even since the promulgation of the Civil Code of the Empire (1896), the legislation varies from State to State. In all, however, property rights are recognized by the law in only those ecclesiastical institutions that are recognized by the State. As a rule, donations must be authorized by the civil power if they exceed the value of five thousand marks (1250 dollars, or 250 pounds sterling) though in some states this figure is doubled. In Prussia civil authorization is requisite for all acquisition of real property by a diocese, a chapter, or any ecclesiastical institution. In Italy every donation must be approved by the civil authority, and only the institutions recognized by the State are allowed to acquire property; note, however, that simple benefices (see BENEFICE) and religious orders cannot acquire this latter privilege. With few exceptions, ecclesiastical institutions in Italy are not allowed to invest in any other form of property than Government bonds. In France the associations cultuelles, or worship-associations, are recognized by the State as civil entities for the conduct of public worship; it is well known, however, that Pius X forbade the Catholics of France to form such associations. That country, it is true, recognizes the civil personality of licit associations organized for a non-lucrative purpose, but declares illicit every religious congregation not approved by a special law. At the same time, it refuses to approve the religious congregations which have sought this approval, and is gradually suppressing all those which were formerly approved. (See PROPERTY, ECCLESIASTICAL.)

FÉNELON, Les fondations et les établissements ecclésiastiques (Paris, 1902); FOURNERET, Reasources dont l'Eglise dispose pour reconstituer son patrimoine (Paris, 1902); KNECHT, System des justinianischen Kirchenvermögensrechte (Stuttgart, 1905); BONDROIT, De capacitate possidendi ecclesiœ œtate merovingicâ (Louvain, 1900); LOENING, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts (Strasburg, 1898), II, 653 sq.; SCHMALZGRUEBER, Jus ecclesiasticum universum (Rome, 1844), III, ii, 430-460; SANTI, Prœlectiones juris canonici (Rome, 1898), III, 206; WERNZ, Jus Decretalium (Rome, 1901), III, 270 sq.; AICHNER, Compendium juris ecclesiastici (Brixen, 1900), 814-815; SILBERNAGL, Lehrbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Ratisbon, 1903), 692 sq.; GEIGER, Der kirchenrechtliche Inhalt der bundesstaatlichen Ausführungsgesetze zum bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch für das deutsche Reich in Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht (Mainz, 1901), LXXXI, 650. — For the juridical condition of the Church in the different nations of the world in respect of property see the articles on various countries in THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA; also a series of articles in Revue catholique des institutions et du droit (Paris, 1907), Series II, vols. XXXVIII and XXXIX; also in Bulletin de la société de législation comparée (Paris, 1905-1907), XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI.

A. VAN HOVE.

Donation

(IN CIVIL JURISPRUDENCE)

Donation, the gratuitous transfer, or gift (Lat. donatio), of ownership of property. The Latin word munus also signified a gift, but "a gift on some special occasion such as births or marriages" (Roby, Roman Private Law, Cambridge, 1902, I, 86). The person transferring ownership by donation is termed the donor, the person to whom the transfer is made, the donee. In contemplation of law donation is "based upon the fundamental right everyone has of disposing of his property as he wills" (125 New York Court of Appeals Reports, p. 579), a right, however, deemed from ancient times an appropriate subject for legal regulation and restraint (see Johns, Babylonian and Assyrian Laws, etc., New York, 1904, XXI). Donation requires the consent not only of the donor to transfer the ownership, but also that of the donee to accept and assume it, "as I cannot", remarks Pothier (Treatise on Obligations, 4), "by the mere act of my own mind transfer to another a right in my goods, without a concurrent intention on his part to accept them". Donations are usually classified as (1) inter vivos (among the Living) and (2) mortis causa (in view of death).

(1) Inter Vivos

Sir William Blackstone explains (in his Commentaries, II, 441) that in English law mutual consent to give and to accept is not a gift, but is an imperfect contract void for want of consideration. Yet delivery and acceptance being added to the ineffectual consent, the transaction becomes an irrevocable transfer by donation inter vivos, regarded in law as an executed contract, just as if the preliminary consents had constituted an effectual "act in the law" (see Pollock, Principles of Contract, New York, 1906, 2). "Every gift", remarks Chancellor Kent, "which is made perfect by delivery, and every grant, are executed contracts, for they are founded on the mutual consent of the parties in reference to a right or interest passing between them" (Commentaries on American Law, II, 437); and Milton (Paradise Lost, XII, 67) says: —

According to English law, writing under seal, known as a deed, so far transfers personal property without actual delivery that ownership vests upon execution of the deed, and the donation is irrevocable until disclaimed by the donee (J. W. Smith The Law of Contracts, 36, Philadelphia, 1885). Not only movable things, defined in English law as personal property, but land (real estate) may be the subject of this donation (24 Vermont Reports, 591; 115 New York Court of Appeals Reports, 295). The legislation of the Emperor Justinian abolished requirements which by Roman law had previously been necessary to perfect a donation, and thenceforth, by force of this legislation, the donor's informal agreement to give, bound him to make delivery. Donations, were, however, rendered revocable by the same legislation for a failure to comply with their conditions, and also for gross ingratitude (Leage, Roman Private Law, London, 1906, 145). The English law "controls", to quote Chancellor Kent, "gifts when made to the prejudice of existing creditors" (Commentaries, II, 440); and a donation may be avoided if the donor "were under any legal incapacity . . . or if he were drawn in, circumvented or imposed upon by false pretences, ebriety or surprise" (Blackstone, Commentaries, II, 441). But English law does not annul donations for ingratitude nor for various other causes mentioned in the Roman law. English law "does not", according to Chancellor Kent, "indulge in these refinements" (op. cit.). Donations between husband and wife were contrary to the policy of the Roman law which permitted donatio propter nuptias before marriage only (Leage, op. cit., 95). By English common law there accrued to a husband full ownership of his wife's personal property, and possession for their joint lives of her real property. And because English law deemed husband and wife one person (Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Married Women, Boston, 1873, I, 231), a gift of personal property from husband to wife was "impossible according to the old and technical common law" (ibid., 730). But the commentator adds that "it is otherwise in equity" (ibid., 731). By the French Code Civil, donations inter vivos, designated entre vifs, are recognized; but they are subjected to many restrictions.

(2) Mortis Causa

A donation of this kind is made when a person "in his last sickness", to quote Blackstone (Commentaries, II, 514), "apprehending his dissolution near, delivers or causes to be delivered to another the possession of any personal goods to keep in case of his decease". The same donation may also be made in presence of any other impending peril of death. The "Institutes" of Justinian cite a classic example: sic et apud Homerum Telemachus donat Pirœo (II, VII). This donation differs strikingly from donation inter vivos in not being absolute, but conditional on the donor failing to recover from the sickness or to escape the peril; also in being dependent on his not having exercised the right which remains to him, of revoking the donation. The transfer is thus perfected by death only. Roman law permitted such donations between husband and wife because these were donations quœ conferuntur in tempus soluti matrimonii (Pothier, Pandectæ Justinianeæ, XXIV, t. i, xix). Nor were donations of this kind from husband to wife forbidden by the English common law (24 Vermont Reports, 596). As the danger in view of which the donation is made must be actually present, therefore a transfer from an owner "not terrified by fear of any present peril, but moved by the general consideration of man's mortality", cannot be sustained as a donation mortis causa. A transfer of ownership of real estate cannot be effected by this form of donation. And any donation mortis causa expressly embracing the whole of the donor's property has been said to be illegal, being deemed to be an attempt to escape disposition by last will (American Law Register, I, 25). The grounds already referred to on which a donation inter vivos may be avoided seem also grounds for avoiding a donation mortis causa. In every instance the evidence establishing such a donation as against a donor's representatives must "be clear and convincing, strong and satisfactory" (125 New York Court of Appeals Reports, 757). For this "death-bed disposition of property", as it is termed by Blackstone (op. cit.), is not a favourite of the law. Many years ago a lord chancellor of England, profoundly learned in the law and noted for his conservatism suggested that if "this donatio mortis causa was struck out of our law altogether it would be quite as well" (American Law Register, I, II). And by the Code Civil it has been "struck out" of the law of France.

STORY, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence (Boston, 1886), 607, 608; PARSONS, The Law of Contracts (Boston, 1904), I, 254-60; 2 Vesey Jrs. Reports (Boston, 1844), 119; 4 Wheaton's Reports, Sup. Ct. U. S. (New York, 1819), 518; 49 New York Court of Appeals Reports, 17: La Grande Encyc., s. v.

CHARLES W. SLOANE.

Donation of Constantine

(Lat., Donatio Constantini).

By this name is understood, since the end of the Middle Ages, a forged document of Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church. In the oldest known (ninth century) manuscript (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, MS. Latin 2777) and in many other manuscripts the document bears the title: "Constitutum domni Constantini imperatoris". It is addressed by Constantine to Pope Sylvester I (314-35) and consists of two parts. In the first (entitled "Confessio") the emperor relates how he was instructed in the Christian Faith by Sylvester, makes a full profession of faith, and tells of his baptism in Rome by that pope, and how he was thereby cured of leprosy. In the second part (the "Donatio") Constantine is made to confer on Sylvester and his successors the following privileges and possessions: the pope, as successor of St. Peter, has the primacy over the four Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, also over all the bishops in the world. The Lateran basilica at Rome, built by Constantine, shall surpass all churches as their head, similarly the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul shall be endowed with rich possessions. The chief Roman ecclesiastics (clerici cadinales), among whom senators may also be received, shall obtain the same honours and distinctions as the senators. Like the emperor the Roman Church shall have as functionaries cubicularii, ostiarii, and excubitores. The pope shall enjoy the same honorary rights as the emperor, among them the right to wear an imperial crown, a purple cloak and tunic, and in general all imperial insignia or signs of distinction; but as Sylvester refused to put on his head a golden crown, the emperor invested him with the high white cap (phrygium). Constantine, the document continues, rendered to the pope the service of a strator, i.e. he led the horse upon which the pope rode. Moreover, the emperor makes a present to the pope and his successors of the Lateran palace, of Rome and the provinces, districts, and towns of Italy and all the Western regions (tam palatium nostrum, ut prelatum est, quamque Romæ urbis et omnes Italiæ seu occidentalium regionum provinicas loca et civitates). The document goes on to say that for himself the emperor has established in the East a new capital which bears his name, and thither he removes his government, since it is inconvenient that a secular emperor have power where God has established the residence of the head of the Christian religion. The document concludes with maledictions against all who dare to violate these donations and with the assurance that the emperor has signed them with his own hand and placed them on the tomb of St. Peter.

This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850. As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known and demonstrated. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (De Concordantiâ Catholicâ, III, ii, in the Basle ed. of his Opera, 1565, I) spoke of it as a dictamen apocryphum. Some years later (1440) Lorenzo Valla (De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio, Mainz, 1518) proved the forgery with certainty. Independently of both his predecessors, Reginald Pecocke, Bishop of Chichester (1450-57), reached a similar conclusion in his work, "The Repressor of over much Blaming of the Clergy", Rolls Series, II, 351-366. Its genuinity was yet occasionally defended, and the document still further used as authentic, until Baronius in his "Annales Ecclesiastici" (ad an. 324) admitted that the "Donatio" was a forgery, whereafter it was soon universally admitted to be such. It is so clearly a fabrication that there is no reason to wonder that, with the revival of historical criticism in the fifteenth century, the true character of the document was at once recognized. The forger made use of various authorities, which Grauert and others (see below) have thoroughly investigated. The introduction and the conclusion of the document are imitated from authentic writings of the imperial period, but formulæ of other periods are also utilized. In the "Confession" of faith the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is explained at length, afterwards the Fall of man and the Incarnation of Christ. There are also reminiscences of the decrees of the Iconoclast Synod of Constantinople (754) against the veneration of images. The narrative of the conversion and healing of the emperor is based on the apocryphal Acts of Sylvester (Acta or Gesta Sylvestri), yet all the particulars of the "Donatio" narrative do not appear in the hitherto known texts of that legend. The distinctions conferred on the pope and the cardinals of the Roman Church the forger probably invented and described according to certain contemporary rites and the court ceremonial of the Roman and the Byzantine emperors. The author also used the biographies of the popes in the Liber Pontificalis (q.v.), likewise eighth-century letters of the popes, especially in his account of the imperial donations.

The authorship of this document is still wrapped in obscurity. Occasionally, but without sufficient reason, critics have attributed it to the author of the False Decretals (q.v.) or to some Roman ecclesiastic of the eighth century. On the other hand, the time and place of its composition have lately been thoroughly studied by numerous investigators (especially Germans), though no sure and universally accepted conclusion has yet been reached. As to the place of the forgery Baronius (Annales, ad. an. 1081) maintained that it was done in the East by a schismatic Greek; it is, indeed, found in Greek canonical collections. Natalis Alexander opposed this view, and it is no longer held by any recent historian. Many of the recent critical students of the document locate its composition at Rome and attribute the forgery to an ecclesiastic, their chief argument being an intrinsic one: this false document was composed in favour of the popes and of the Roman Church, therefore Rome itself must have had the chief interest in a forgery executed for a purpose so clearly expressed. Moreover, the sources of the document are chiefly Roman. Nevertheless, the earlier view of Zaccaria and others that the forgery originated in the Frankish Empire has quite recently been ably defended by Hergenröther and Grauert (see below). They call attention to the fact that the "Donatio" appears first in Frankish collections, i.e. in the False Decretals and in the above-mentioned St-Denis manuscript; moreover the earliest certain quotation of it is by Frankish authors in the second half of the ninth century. Finally, this document was never used in the papal chancery until the middle of the eleventh century, nor in general is it referred to in Roman sources until the time of Otto III (983-1002, i.e. in case the famous "Diploma" of this emperor be authentic). The first certain use of it at Rome was by Leo IX in 1054, and it is to be noted that this pope was by birth and training a German, not an Italian. The writers mentioned have shown that the chief aim of the forgery was to prove the justice of the translatio imperii to the Franks, i.e. the transfer of the imperial title at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800; the forgery was, therefore, important mainly for the Frankish Empire. This view is rightly tenable against the opinion of the majority that this forgery originated at Rome.

A still greater divergency of opinion reigns as to the time of its composition. Some have asserted (more recently Martens, Friedrich, and Bayet) that each of its two parts was fabricated at different times. Martens holds that the author executed his forgery at brief intervals; that the "Constitutum" originated after 800 in connection with a letter of Adrian I (778) to Charlemagne wherein the pope acknowledged the imperial position to which the Frankish king by his own efforts and fortune had attained. Friedrich (see below), on the contrary, attempts to prove that the "Constitutum" was composed of two really distinct parts. The gist of the first part, the so-called "Confessio", appeared between 638 and 653, probably 638-641, while the second, or "Donatio" proper, was written in the reign of Stephen II, between 752 and 757, by Paul, brother and successor of Pope Stephen. According to Bayet the first part of the document was composed in the time of Paul I (757-767); the latter part appeared in or about the year 774. In opposition to these opinions most historians maintain that the document was written at the same time and wholly by one author. But when was it written? Colombier decides for the reign of Pope Conon (686-687), Genelin for the beginning of the eighth century (before 728). But neither of these views is supported by sufficient reasons, and both are certainly untenable. Most investigators accept as the earliest possible date the pontificate of Stephen II (752-757), thus establishing a connection between the forgery and the historical events that led to the origin of the States of the Church and the Western Empire of the Frankish kings. But in what year of period from the above-mentioned pontificate of Stephen II until the reception of the "Constitutum" in the collection of the False Decretals (c. 840-50) was the forgery executed? Nearly every student of this intricate question maintains his own distinct view. It is necessary first to answer a preliminary question: Did Pope Adrian I in his letter to Charlemagne of the year 778 (Codex Carolinus, ed. Jaffé Ep. lxi) exhibit a knowledge of the "Constitutum"? From a passage of this letter (Sicut temporibus beati Silvestri Romani pontificis a sanctæ recordationis piisimo Constantino magno imperatore per eius largitatem sancta Dei Catholica et Apostolica Romana ecclesia elevata et exaltata est et potestatem in his Hesperiæ partibus largiri dignatus, ita et in his vestris felicissimis temporibus atque nostris sancta Dei ecclesia, id est beati Petri apostoli, germinet atque exultet. . . .) several writers, e.g. Döllinger, Langen, Meyer, and others have concluded that Adrian I was then aware of this forgery, so that it must have appeared before 778. Friedrich assumes in Adrian I a knowledge of the "Constitutum" from his letter to Emperor Constantine VI written in 785 (Mansi, Concil. Coll., XII, 1056). Most historians, however, rightly refrain from asserting that Adrian I made use of this document; from his letters, therefore, the time of its origin cannot be deduced.

Most of the recent writers on the subject assume the origin of the "Donatio" between 752 and 795. Among them, some decide for the pontificate of Stephen II (752-757) on the hypothesis that the author of the forgery wished to substantiate thereby the claims of this pope in his negotiations with Pepin (Döllinger, Hauck, Friedrich, Böhmer). Others lower the date of the forgery to the time of Paul I (757-767), and base their opinion on the political events in Italy under this pope, or on the fact that he had a special veneration for St. Sylvester, and that the "Donatio" had especially in view the honour of this saint (Scheffer-Boichorst, Mayer). Others again locate its origin in the pontificate of Adrian I (772-795), on the hypothesis that this pope hoped thereby to extend the secular authority of the Roman Church over a great part of Italy and to create in this way a powerful ecclesiastical State under papal government (Langen, Loening). A smaller group of writers, however, remove the forgery to some date after 800, i.e. after the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor. Among these, Martens and Weiland assign the document to the last years of the reign of Charlemagne, or the first years of Louis the Pious, i.e. somewhere between 800 and 840. They argue that the chief purpose of the forgery was to bestow on the Western ruler the imperial power, or that the "Constitutum" was meant to indicate what the new emperor, as successor of Constantine the Great, might have conferred on the Roman Church. Those writers also who seek the forger in the Frankish Empire maintain that the document was written in the ninth century, e.g. especially Hergenröther and Grauert. The latter opines that the "Constitutum" originated in the monastery of St-Denis, at Paris, shortly before or about the same time as the False Decretals, i.e. between 840 and 850.

Closely connected with the date of the forgery is the other question concerning the primary purpose of the forger of the "Donatio". Here, too, there exists a great variety of opinions. Most of the writers who locate at Rome itself the origin of the forgery maintain that it was intended principally to support the claims of the popes to secular power in Italy; they differ, however, as to the extent of the said claims. According to Döllinger the "Constitutum" was destined to aid in the creation of a united Italy under papal government. Others would limit the papal claims to those districts which Stephen II sought to obtain from Pepin, or to isolated territories which, then or later, the popes desired to acquire. In general, this class of historians seeks to connect the forgery with the historical events and political movements of that time in Italy (Mayer, Langen, Friedrich, Loening, and others). Several of these writers lay more stress on the elevation of the papacy than on the donation of territories. Occasionally it is maintained that the forger sought to secure for the pope a kind of higher secular power, something akin to imperial supremacy as against the Frankish Government, then solidly established in Italy. Again, some of this class limit to Italy the expression occidentalium regionum provincias, but most of them understand it to mean the whole former Western Empire. This is the attitude of Weiland, for whom the chief object of the forgery is the increase of papal power over the imperial, and the establishment of a kind of imperial supremacy of the pope over the whole West. For this reason also he lowers the date of the "Constitutum" no further than the end of the reign of Charlemagne (814). As a matter of fact, however, in this document Sylvester does indeed obtain from Constantine imperial rank and the emblems of imperial dignity, but not the real imperial supremacy. Martens therefore sees in the forgery an effort to elevate the papacy in general; all alleged prerogatives of the pope and of Roman ecclesiastics, all gifts of landed possessions, and rights of secular government are meant to promote and confirm this elevation, and from it all the new Emperor Charlemagne ought to draw practical conclusions for his behaviour in relation to the pope. Scheffer-Boichorst holds a singular opinion, namely that the forger intended primarily the glorification of Sylvester and Constantine, and only in a secondary way a defence of the papal claims to territorial possessions. Grauert, for whom the forger is a Frankish subject, shares the view of Hergenröther, i.e. the forger had in mind a defence of the new Western Empire from the attacks of the Byzantines. Therefore it was highly important for him to establish the legitimacy of the newly founded empire, and this purpose was especially aided by all that the document alleges concerning the elevation of the pope. From the foregoing it will be seen that the last word of historical research in this matter still remains to be said. Important questions concerning the sources of the forgery, the place and time of its origin, the tendency of the forger, yet await their solution. New researches will probably pay still greater attention to textual criticism, especially that of the first part or "Confession" of faith.

As far as the evidence at hand permits us to judge, the forged "Constitutum" was first made known in the Frankish Empire. The oldest extant manuscript of it, certainly from the ninth century, was written in the Frankish Empire. In the second half of that century the document is expressly mentioned by three Frankish writers. Ado, Bishop of Vienne, speaks of it in his Chronicle (De sex ætatibus mundi, ad an. 306, in P.L., CXXIII, 92); Æneas, Bishop of Paris, refers to it in defence of the Roman primacy (Adversus Græcos, c. ccix, op. cit., CXXI, 758); Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, mentions the donation of Rome to the pope by Constantine the Great according to the "Constitutum" (De ordine palatii, c. xiii, op. cit., CXXV, 998). The document obtained wider circulation by its incorporation with the False Decretals (840-850, or more specifically between 847 and 852; Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianæ, Leipzig, 1863, p. 249). At Rome no use was made of the document during the ninth and the tenth centuries, not even amid the conflicts and difficulties of Nicholas I with Constantinople, when it might have served as a welcome argument for the claims of the pope. The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the "Donatio" acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power. Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Deusdedit inserted it in their collections of canons. Gratian, it is true, excluded it from his "Decretum", but it was soon added to it as "Palea". The ecclesiastical writers in defence of the papacy during the conflicts of the early part of the twelfth century quoted it as authoritative (Hugo of Fleury, De regiâ potestate et ecclesiasticâ dignitate, II; Placidus of Nonantula, De honore ecclesiæ, cc. lvii, xci, cli; Disputatio vel defensio Paschalis papæ, Honorius Augustodunensis, De summâ gloriæ, c. xvii; cf. Mon. Germ. Hist., Libelli de lite, II, 456, 591, 614, 635; III, 71). St. Peter Damian also relied on it in his writings against the antipope Cadalous of Parma (Disceptatio synodalis, in Libelli de lite, I, 88). Gregory VII himself never quoted this document in his long warfare for ecclesiastical liberty against the secular power. But Urban II made use of it in 1091 to support his claims on the island of Corsica. Later popes (Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV) took its authority for granted (Innocent III, Sermo de sancto Silvestro, in P.L., CCXVII, 481 sqq.; Raynaldus, Annales, ad an. 1236, n. 24; Potthast, Regesta, no. 11,848), and ecclesiastical writers often adduced its evidence in favour of the papacy. The medieval adversaries of the popes, on the other hand, never denied the validity of this appeal to the pretended donation of Constantine, but endeavoured to show that the legal deductions drawn from it were founded on false interpretations. The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no one before the fifteenth century. It was known to the Greeks in the second half of the twelfth century, when it appears in the collection of Theodore Balsamon (1169 sqq.); later on another Greek canonist, Matthæus Blastares (about 1335), admitted it into his collection. It appears also in other Greek works. Moreover, it was highly esteemed in the Greek East. The Greeks claimed, it is well known, for the Bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) the same honorary rights as those enjoyed by the Bishop of Old Rome. By now, by virtue of this document, they claimed for the Byzantine clergy also the privileges and perogatives granted to the pope and the Roman ecclesiastics. In the West, long after its authenticity was disputed in the fifteenth century, its validity was still upheld by the majority of canonists and jurists who continued throughout the sixteenth century to quote it as authentic. And though Baronius and later historians acknowledged it to be a forgery, they endeavoured to marshal other authorities in defence of its content, especially as regards the imperial donations. In later times even this was abandoned, so that now the whole "Constitutum", both in form and content, is rightly considered in all senses a forgery. See FALSE DECRETALS; SYLVESTER I; STATES OF THE CHURCH; TEMPORAL POWER.

The text of the Donatio has often been printed, e.g. in LABBE, Concil., I, 1530; MANSI, Concil. col., II, 603; finally by GRAUERT (see below) and ZEUMER in Festgabe für Rudolf von Gneist (Berlin, 1888), 39 sqq. See HALLER, Die Quellen zur Geschichte der Entstehung des Kirchenstaats (Leipzig and Berlin, 1907) 241-250; CENNI, Monumenta dominationis Pontificiæ (Rome, 1760), I, 306 sqq.; cf. Origine della Donazione di Costantino in Civilta Cattolica, ser. V, X, 1864, 303 sqq. The following are non-Catholic: ZINKEISEN, The Donation of Constantine as applied by the Roman Church in Eng. Hist. Review (1894), IX, 625-32; SCHAFF, Hist. of the Christ. Church (New York, 1905), IV, 270-72; HODGKIN, Italy and Her Invaders (Oxford, 1899), VII, 135 sqq. See also COLOMBIER, La Donation de Constantin in Etudes Religieuses (1877), XI, 800 sqq.; BONNEAU, La Donation de Constantin (Lisieux, 1891); BAYET, La fausse Donation de Constantin in Annuaire de la Faculté des lettres de Lyon (Paris, 1884), II, 12 sq.; DÖLLINGER, Papstfabeln des Mittelalters (Munich, 1863), Stuttgart, 1890), 72 sqq.; HERGENRÖTHER, Katholische Kirche und christlicher Staat (Freiburg im Br., 1872), I, 360 sqq.; GENELIN, Das Schenkungsversprechen und die Schenkung Pippins (Leipzig, 1880), 36 sqq.; MARTENS, Die römische Frage unter Pippin und Karl dem Grossen (Stuttgart, 1881), 327 sqq.; IDEM, Die falsche Generalkonzession Konstantins des Grossen (Munich, 1889); IDEM, Beleuchtung der neuesten Kontroversen über die römische Frage unter Pippin und Karl dem Grossen (Munich, 1898), 151 sqq.; GRAUERT Die konstantinische Schenkung in Historisches Jahrbuch (1882), 3 sqq. (1883), 45 sqq., 674 sqq. (1884), 117 sqq.; LANGEN, Entstehung und Tendenz der konstantinischen Schenkungsurkunde in Historische Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht (1889), 137 sqq., 185 sqq.; BRUNNER, Das Constitutum Constantini in Festgabe für R. von Gneist (Berlin, 1888), 3 sqq.; FRIEDRICH, Die konstantinische Schenkung (Nördlingen, 1889); SCHEFFER-BOICHORST, Neuere Forschungen über die konstantinische Schenkung in Mitteilungen des Instituts fürösterr. Geschichtsforsch. (1889), 302 sqq. (1890), 128 sqq.; LAMPRECHT, Die römische Frage von Konig Pippin bis auf Kaiser Ludwig den Frommen (Leipzig, 1889), 117 sqq.; LOENING, Die Entstehung der konstantinischen Schenkungsurkunde in Histor. Zeitschrift (1890), 193 sqq.; BÖHMER, Konstantinische Schenkung in Realencyclopadie für prot. Theol. (Leipzig, 1902), XI, 1 sqq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Donatists

The Donatist schism in Africa began in 311 and flourished just one hundred years, until the conference at Carthage in 411, after which its importance waned.

CAUSES OF THE SCHISM

In order to trace the origin of the division we have to go back to the persecution under Diocletian. The first edict of that emperor against Christians (24 Feb., 303) commanded their churches to be destroyed, their Sacred Books to be delivered up and burnt, while they themselves were outlawed. Severer measures followed in 304, when the fourth edict ordered all to offer incense to the idols under pain of death. After the abdication of Maximian in 305, the persecution seems to have abated in Africa. Until then it was terrible. In Numidia the governor, Florus, was infamous for his cruelty, and, though many officials may have been, like the proconsul Anulinus, unwilling to go further than they were obliged, yet St. Optatus is able to say of the Christians of the whole country that some were confessors, some were martyrs, some fell, only those who were hidden escaped. The exaggerations of the highly strung African character showed themselves. A hundred years earlier Tertullian had taught that flight from persecution was not permissible. Some now went beyond this, and voluntarily gave themselves up to martyrdom as Christians. Their motives were, however, not always above suspicion. Mensurius, the Bishop of Carthage, in a letter to Secundus, Bishop of Tigisi, then the senior bishop (primate) of Numidia, declares that he had forbidden any to be honoured as martyrs who had given themselves up of their own accord, or who had boasted that they possessed copies of the Scriptures which they would not relinquish; some of these, he says, were criminals and debtors to the State, who thought they might by this means rid themselves of a burdensome life, or else wipe away the remembrance of their misdeeds, or at least gain money and enjoy in prison the luxuries supplied by the kindness of Christians. The later excesses of the Circumcellions show that Mensurius had some ground for the severe line he took. He explains that he had himself taken the Sacred Books of the Church to his own house, and had substituted a number of heretical writings, which the prosecutors had seized without asking for more; the proconsul, when informed of the deception refused to search the bishop's private house. Secundus, in his reply, without blaming Mensurius, somewhat pointedly praised the martyrs who in his own province had been tortured and put to death for refusing to deliver up the Scriptures; he himself had replied to the officials who came to search: "I am a Christian and a bishop, not a traditor." This word traditor became a technical expression to designate those who had given up the Sacred Books, and also those who had committed the worse crimes of delivering up the sacred vessels and even their own brethren.

It is certain that relations were strained between the confessors in prison at Carthage and their bishop. If we may credit the Donatist Acts of the forty-nine martyrs of Abitene, they broke off communion with Mensurius. We are informed in these Acts that Mensurius was a traditor by his own confession, and that his deacon, Caecilian, raged more furiously against the martyrs than did the persecutors themselves; he set armed men with whips before the door of the prison to prevent their receiving any succor; the food brought by the piety of the Christians was thrown to the dogs by these ruffians, and the drink provided was spilled in the street, so that the martyrs, whose condemnation the mild proconsul had deferred, died in prison of hunger and thirst. The story is recognized by Duchesne and others as exaggerated. It would be better to say that the main point is incredible; the prisoners would not have been allowed by the Roman officials to starve; the details -- that Mensurius confessed himself a traditor, that he prevented the succoring of the imprisoned confessors -- are simply founded on the letter of Mensurius to Secundus. Thus we may safely reject all the latter part of the Acts as fictitious. The earlier part is authentic: it relates how certain of the faithful of Abitene met and celebrated their usual Sunday service, in defiance of the emperor's edict, under the leadership of the priest Saturninus, for their bishop was a traditor and they disowned him; they were sent to Carthage, made bold replies when interrogated, and were imprisoned by Anulinus, who might have condemned them to death forthwith. The whole account is characteristic of the fervid African temperament. We can well imagine how the prudent Mensurius and his lieutenant, the deacon Caecilian, were disliked by some of the more excitable among their flock.

We know in detail how the inquiries for sacred books were carried out, for the official minutes of an investigation at Cirta (afterwards Constantine) in Numidia are preserved. The bishop and his clergy showed themselves ready to give up all they had, but drew the line at betraying their brethren; even here their generosity was not remarkable, for they added that the names and addresses were well known to the officials. The examination was conducted by Munatius Felix, perpetual flamen, curator of the colony of Cirta. Having arrived with his satellites at the bishop's house -- in Numidia the searching was more severe than in Proconsular Africa -- the bishop was found with four priests, three deacons, four subdeacons, and several fossores (diggers). These declared that the Scriptures were not there, but in the hands of the lectors; an in fact the bookcase was found to be empty. The clergy present refused to give the names of the lectors, saying they were known to the notaries; but, with the exception of the books, they gave in an inventory of all possessions of the church: two golden chalices, six of silver, six silver cruets, a silver bowl, seven silver lamps, two candlesticks, seven short bronze lamp-stands with lamps, eleven bronze lamps with chains, eighty-two women's tunics, twenty-eight veils, sixteen men's tunics, thirteen pairs of men's boots, forty-seven pairs of women's boots, nineteen countrymen's smocks. Presently the subdeacon Silvanus brought forth a silver box and another silver lamp, which he had found behind a jug. In the dining-room were four casks and seven jugs. A subdeacon produced a thick book. Then the houses of the lectors were visited: Eugenius gave up four volumes, Felix, the mosaic worker gave up five, Victorinus eight, Projectus five large volumes and two small ones, the grammarian Victor two codices and five quinions, or gatherings of five leaves; Euticius of Caesarea declared that he had no books; the wife of Coddeo produced six volumes, and said that she had no more; and a search was made without further result. It is interesting to note that the books were all codices (in book form), not rolls, which had gone out of fashion in the course of the preceding century.

It is to be hoped that such disgraceful scenes were infrequent. A contrasting instance of heroism is found in the story of Felix, Bishop of Tibiuca, who was hauled before the magistrate on the very day, 5 June 303, when the decree was posted up in that city. He refused to give up any books, and was sent to Carthage. The proconsul Anulinus, unable by close confinement to weaken his determination, sent him on to Rome to Maximian Hercules.

In 305, the persecution had relaxed, and it was possible to unite fourteen or more bishops at Cirta in order to give a successor to Paul. Secundus presided as primate, and in his zeal he attempted to examine the conduct of his colleagues. They met in a private house, for the Church had not yet been restored to the Christians. "We must first try ourselves", said the primate, "before we can venture to ordain a bishop". To Donatus of Mascula he said: "You are said to have been a traditor." "You know", replied the bishop, "how Florus searched for me that I might offer incense, but God did not deliver me into his hands, brother. As God forgave me, do you reserve me to His judgment." "What then", said Secundus, "shall we say of the martyrs? It is because they did not give up anything that they were crowned." "Send me to God," said Donatus, "to Him will I give an account." (In fact, a bishop was not amenable to penance and was properly "reserved to God" in this sense.) "Stand on one side", said the president, and to Marinus of Aquae Tibilitanae he said: "You also are said to be a traditor." Marinus said: "I gave papers to Pollux; my books are safe." This was not satisfactory, and Secundus said: "Go over to that side"; then to Donatus of Calama: "You are said to be a traditor." "I gave up books on medicine." Secundus seems to have been incredulous, or at least he thought a trial was needed, for again he said: "Stand on one side." After a gap in the Acts, we read that Secundus turned to Victor, Bishop of Russicade: "You are said to have given up the Four Gospels." Victor replied: "It was the curator, Valentinus; he forced me to throw them into the fire. Forgive me this fault, and God will also forgive it." Secundus said: "Stand on one side." Secundus (after another gap) said to Purpurius of Limata: "You are said to have killed the two sons of your sister at Mileum" (Milevis). Purpurius answered with vehemence: "Do you think I am frightened by you as the others are? What did you do yourself when the curator and his officials tried to make you give up the Scriptures? How did you manage to get off scot-free, unless you gave them something, or ordered something to be given? They certainly did not let you go for nothing! As for me I have killed and I kill those who are against me; do not provoke me to say anymore. You know that I do not interfere where I have no business." At this outburst, a nephew of Secundus said to the primate: "You hear what they say of you? He is ready to withdraw and make a schism; and the same is true of all those whom you accuse; and I know they are capable of turning you out and condemning you, and you alone will then be the heretic. What is it to you what they have done? Each must give his account to God." Secundus (as St. Augustine points out) had apparently no reply against the accusation of Purpurius, so he turned to the two or three bishops who remained unaccused: "What do you think?" These answered: "They have God to whom they must give an account." Secundus said: "You know and God knows. Sit down." And all replied: Deo gratis.

These minutes have been preserved for us by St. Augustine. The later Donatists declared them forged, but not only could St. Optatus refer to the age of the parchment on which they were written, but they are made easily credible by the testimonies given before Zenophilus in 320. Seeck, as well as Duchesne (see below), upholds their genuineness. We hear from St. Optatus of another fallen Numidian bishop, who refused to come to the council on the pretext of bad eyes, but in reality for fear his fellow-citizens should prove that he had offered incense, a crime of which the other bishops were not guilty. The bishops proceeded to ordain a bishop, and they chose Silvanus, who, as a subdeacon, assisted in the search for sacred vessels. The people of Cirta rose up against him, crying that he was a traditor, and demanded the appointment of a certain Donatus. But country people and gladiators were engaged to set him in the episcopal chair, to which he was carried on the back of a man named Mutus.

CAECILIAN AND MAJORINUS

A certain Donatus of Casae Nigrae is said to have caused a schism in Carthage during the lifetime of Mensurius. In 311 Maxentius obtained dominion over Africa, and a deacon of Carthage, Felix, was accused of writing a defamatory letter against the tyrant. Mensurius was said to have concealed his deacon in his house and was summoned to Rome. He was acquitted, but died on his return journey. Before his departure from Africa, he had given the gold and silver ornaments of the church to the care of certain old men, and had also consigned an inventory of these effects to an aged woman, who was to deliver it to the next bishop. Maxentius gave liberty to the Christians, so that it was possible for an election to be held at Carthage. The bishop of Carthage, like the pope, was commonly consecrated by a neighbouring bishop, assisted by a number of others form the vicinity. He was primate not only of the proconsular province, but of the other provinces of North Africa, including Numidian, Byzacene, Tripolitana, and the two Mauretanias, which were all governed by the vicar of prefects. In each of these provinces the local primacy was attached to no town, but was held by the senior bishop, until St. Gregory the Great made the office elective. St. Optatus implies that the bishops of Numidia, many of whom were at no great distance from Carthage, had expected that they would have a voice in the election; but two priests, Botrus and Caelestius, who each expected to be elected, had managed that only a small number of bishops should be present. Caecilian, the deacon who had been so obnoxious to the martyrs, was duly chosen by the whole people, placed in the chair of Mensurius, and consecrated by Felix, Bishop of Aptonga or Abtughi. The old men who had charge of the treasure of the church were obliged to give it up; they joined with Botrus and Caelestius in refusing to acknowledge the new bishop. They were assisted by a rich lady named Lucilla, who had a grudge against Caecilian because he had rebuked her habit of kissing the bone of an uncanonized (non vindicatus) martyr immediately before receiving Holy Communion. Probably we have here again a martyr whose death was due to his own ill-regulated fervour.

Secundus, as the nearest primate, came with his suffragans to Carthage to judge the affair, and in a great council of seventy bishops declared the ordination of Caecilian to be invalid, as having been performed by a traditor. A new bishop was consecrated. Majorinus, who belonged to the household of Lucilla and had been a lector in the deaconry of Caecilian. That lady provided the sum of 400 folles (more than 11,000 dollars), nominally for the poor; but all of it went into the pockets of the bishops, one-quarter of the sum being seized by Purpurius of Limata. Caecilian had possession of the basilica and the cathedra of Cyprian, and the people were with him, so that he refused to appear before the council. "If I am not properly consecrated", he said ironically, "let them treat me as a deacon, and lay hands on me afresh, and not on another." On this reply being brought, Purpurius cried: "Let him come here, and instead of laying on him, we will break his head in penance." No wonder that the action of this council, which sent letters throughout Africa, had a great influence. But at Carthage it was well known that Caecilian was the choice of the people, and it was not believed that Felix of Aptonga had given up the Sacred Books. Rome and Italy had given Caecilian their communion. The Church of the moderate Mensurius did not hold that consecration by a traditor was invalid, or even that it was illicit, if the traditor was still in lawful possession of his see. The council of Secundus, on the contrary, declared that a traditor could not act as a bishop, and that any who were in communion with traditors were cut off from the Church. They called themselves the Church of the martyrs, and declared that all who were in communion with public sinners like Caecilian and Felix were necessarily excommunicate.

THE CONDEMNATION BY POPE MELCHIADES

Very soon there were many cities having two bishops, the one in communion with Caecilian, the other with Majorinus. Constantine, after defeating Maxentius (28 October, 312) and becoming master of Rome, showed himself a Christian in his acts. He wrote to Anulinus, proconsul of Africa (was he same as the mild proconsul of 303?), restoring the churches to Catholics, and exempting clerics of the "Catholic Church of which Caecilian is president" from civil functions (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. X, v 15, and vii, 2). he also wrote to Caecilian (ibid., X, vi, 1) sending him an order for 3000 folles to be distributed in Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania; if more was needed, the bishop must apply for more. He added that he had heard of turbulent persons who sought to corrupt the Church; he had ordered the proconsul Anulinus, and the vicar of prefects to restrain them, and Caecilian was to appeal to these officials if necessary. The opposing party lost no time. A few days after the publication of these letters, their delegates, accompanied by a mob, brought to Anulinus two bundles of documents, containing the complaints of their party against Caecilian, to be forwarded to the emperor. St. Optatus has preserved a few words from their petition, in which Constantine is begged to grant judges from Gaul, where under his father's rule there had been no persecution, and therefore no traditors. Constantine knew the Church's constitution too well to comply and thereby make Gallic bishops judges of the primates of Africa. He at once referred the matter to the pope, expressing his intention, laudable, if too sanguine, of allowing no schisms in the Catholic Church. That the African schismatics might have no ground of complaint, he ordered three of the chief bishops of Gaul, Reticius of Autun, Maternus of Cologne, and Marinus of Arles, to repair to Rome, to assist at the trial. He ordered Caecilian to come thither with ten bishops of his accusers and ten of his own communion. The memorials against Caecilian he sent to the pope, who would know, he says, what procedure to employ in order to conclude the whole matter with justice. (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., X, v, 18). Pope Melchiades summoned fifteen Italian bishops to sit with him. From this time forward we find that in all important matters the popes issue their decretal letters from a small council of bishops, and there are traces of this custom even before this. The ten Donatist bishops (for we may now give the party its eventual name) were headed by a Bishop Donatus of Casae Nigrae. It was assumed by Optatus, Augustine, and the other Catholic apologists that this was "Donatus the Great", the successor of Majorinus as schismatic Bishop of Carthage. But the Donatists of St. Augustine's time were anxious to deny this, as they did not wish to admit that their protagonist had been condemned, and the Catholics at the conference of 411 granted them the existence of a Donatus, Bishop of Casae Nigrae, who had distinguished himself by active hostility to Caecilian. Modern authorities agree in accepting this view. But it seems inconceivable that, if Majorinus was still alive, he should not have been obliged to go to Rome. It would be very strange, further, that a Donatus of Casae Nigrae should appear as the leader of the party, without any explanation, unless Casae Nigrae was simply the birthplace of Donatus the Great. If we assume that Majorinus had died and had been succeeded by Donatus the Great just before the trial at Rome, we shall understand why Majorinus is never again mentioned. The accusations against Caecilian in the memorial were disregarded, as being anonymous and unproved. The witnesses brought from Africa acknowledged that they had nothing against him. Donatus, on the other hand, was convicted by his own confession of having rebaptized and of having laid his hands in penance on bishops -- this was forbidden by ecclesiastical law. On the third day the unanimous sentence was pronounced by Melchiades: Caecilian was to be maintained in ecclestiastical communion. If Donatist bishops returned to the Church, in a place where there were two rival bishops, the junior was to retire and be provided with another see. The Donatists were furious. A hundred years later their successor declared that Pope Melchiades was himself a traditor, and that on this account they had not accepted his decision; though there is no trace of this having been alleged at the time. But the nineteen bishops at Rome were contrasted with the seventy bishops of the Cathaginian Council, and a fresh judgment was demanded.

THE COUNCIL OF ARLES

Constantine was angry, but he saw that the party was powerful in Africa, and he summoned a council of the whole West (that is, of the whole of his actual dominions) to meet at Arles on 1 August, 314. Melchiades was dead, and his successor, St. Sylvester, thought it unbecoming to leave Rome, thus setting an example which he repeated in the case of Nicaea, and which his successors followed in the cases of Sardica, Rimini, and the Eastern oecumenical councils. Between forty and fifty sees were represented at the council by bishops or proxies; the Bishops of London, York, and Lincoln were there. St. Sylvester sent legates. The council condemned the Donatists and drew up a number of canons; it reported its proceedings in a letter to the pope, which is extant; but, as in the case of Nicaea, no detailed Acts remain, nor are any such mentioned by the ancients. The Fathers in their letter salute Sylvester, saying that he had rightly decided not to quit the spot "where the Apostles daily sit in judgment"; had he been with them, they might perhaps have dealt more severely with the heretics. Among the canons, one forbids rebaptism (which was still practised in Africa), another declares that those who falsely accuse their brethren shall have communion only at the hour of death. On the other hand, traditors are to be refused communion, but only when their fault has been proved by public official acts; those whom they have ordained are to retain their positions. The council produced some effect in Africa, but the main body of the Donatists was immovable. They appealed from the council to the emperor. Constantine was horrified: "O insolent madness!" he wrote, "they appeal from heaven to earth, from Jesus Christ to a man."

THE POLICY OF CONSTANTINE

The emperor retained the Donatist envoys in Gaul, after at first dismissing them. He seems to have thought of sending for Caecilian, then of granting a full examination in Africa. The case of Felix of Aptonga was in fact examined by his order at Carthage in February, 315 (St. Augustine is probably wrong in giving 314). The minutes of the proceedings have come down to us in a mutilated state; they are referred to by St. Optatus, who appended them to his book with other documents, and they are frequently cited by St. Augustine. It was shown that the letter which the Donatists put forward as proving the crime of Felix, had been interpolated by a certain Ingentius; this was established by the confession of Ingentius, as well as by the witness of Alfius, the writer of the letter. It was proved that Felix was actually absent at the time the search for Sacred Books was made at Aptonga. Constantine eventually summoned Caecilian and his opponents to Rome; but Caecilian, for some unknown reason, did not appear. Caecilian and Donatus the Great (who was now, at all events, bishop) were called to Milan, where Constantine heard both sides with great care. He declared that Caecilian was innocent and an excellent bishop (Augustine, Contra Cresconium, III lxxi). He retained both in Italy, however, while he sent two bishops, Eunomius and Olympius, to Africa, with an idea of putting Donatus and Caecilian aside, and substituting a new bishop, to be agreed upon by all parties. It is to be presumed that Caecilian and Donatus had assented to this course; but the violence of the sectaries made it impossible to carry it out. Eunomius and Olympius declared at Carthage that the Catholic Church was that which is diffused throughout the world and that the sentence pronounced against the Donatists could not be annulled. They communicated with the clergy of Caecilian and returned to Italy. Donatus went back to Carthage, and Caecilian, seeing this, felt himself free to do the same. Finally Constantine ordered that the churches which the Donatists had taken should be given to the Catholics. Their other meeting-places were confiscated. Those who were convicted (of calumny?) lost their goods. Evictions were carried out by the military. An ancient sermon on the passion of the Donatist "martyrs", Donatus and Advocatus, describes such scenes. In one of them a regular massacre occurred, and a bishop was among the slain, if we may trust this curious document. The Donatists were proud of this "persecution of Caecilian", which "the Pure" suffered at the hands of the "Church of the Traditors". The Comes Leontius and the Dux Ursacius were the special objects of their indignation.

In 320 came revelations unpleasant to the "Pure". Nundinarius, a deacon of Cirta, had a quarrel with his bishop, Silvanus, who caused him to be stoned -- so he said in his complaint to certain Numidian bishops, in which he threatened that if they did not use their influence in his behalf with Silvanus, he would tell what he knew of them. As he got no satisfaction he brought the matter before Zenophilus, the consular of Numidia. The minutes have come to us in a fragmentary form in the appendix of Optatus, under the title of "Gesta apud Zenophilum". Nundinarius produced letters from Purpurius and other bishops to Silvanus and to the people of Cirta, trying to have peace made with the inconvenient deacon. The minutes of the search at Cirta, which we have already cited, were read and witnesses were called to establish their accuracy, including two of the fossores then present and a lector, Victor the grammarian. It was shown no only that Silvanus was a traditor, but that he had assisted Purpurius, together with two priests and a deacon, in the theft of certain casks of vinegar belonging to the treasury, which were in the temple of Serapis. Silvanus had ordained a priest for the sum of 20 folles (500 to 600 dollars). It was established that none of the money given by Lucilla had reached the poor for whom it was ostensibly given. Thus Silvanus, one of the mainstays of the "Pure" Church, which declared that to communicate with any traditor was to be outside the Church, was himself proved to be a traditor. He was exiled by the consular for robbing the treasury, for obtaining money under false pretences, and for getting himself made bishop by violence. The Donatists later preferred to say that he was banished for refusing to communicate with the "Caecilianists", and Cresconius even spoke of "the persecution of Zenophilus". But it should have been clear to all that the consecrators of Majorinus had called their opponents traditors in order to cover their own delinquencies.

The Donatist party owed its success in great part to the ability of its leader Donatus, the successor of Majorinus. He appears to have really merited the title of "the Great" by his eloquence and force of character. His writings are lost. His influence with his party was extraordinary. St. Augustine frequently declaims against his arrogance and the impiety with which he was almost worshipped by his followers. In his lifetime he is said to have greatly enjoyed the adulation he received, and after death he was counted as a martyr and miracles were ascribed to him.

In 321 Constantine relaxed his vigorous measures, having found that they did not produce the peace he had hoped for, and he weakly begged the Catholics to suffer the Donatists with patience. This was not easy, for the schismatics broke out into violence. At Cirta, Silvanus having returned, they seized the basilica which the emperor had built for the Catholics. They would not give it up, and Constantine found no better expedient that to build another. Throughout Africa, but above all in Numidia, they were numerous. They taught that in all the rest of the world the Catholic Church had perished, through having communicated with the traditor Caecilian; their sect alone was the true Church. If a Catholic came into their churches, they drove him out, and washed with salt the pavement where he had stood. Any Catholic who joined them was forced to be rebaptized. They asserted that their own bishops and ministers were without fault, else their ministrations would be invalid. But in fact they were convicted of drunkenness and other sins. St. Augustine tells us on the authority of Tichonius that the Donatists held a council of two hundred and seventy bishops in which they discussed for seventy-five days the question of rebaptism; they finally decided that in cases where traditors refused to be rebaptized they should be communicated with in spite of this; and the Donatist bishops of Mauretania did not rebaptize traditors until the time of Macarius. Outside Africa the Donatists had a bishop residing on the property of an adherent in Spain, and at an early period of the schism they made a bishop for their small congregation in Rome, which met, it seems, on a hill outside the city, and had the name of "Montenses". This antipapal "succession with a beginning" was frequently ridiculed by Catholic writers. The series included Felix, Boniface, Encolpius, Macrobius (c. 370), Lucian, Claudian (c. 378), and again Felix in 411.

THE CIRCUMCELLIONS

The date of the first appearance of the Circumcellions is uncertain, but probably they began before the death of Constantine. They were mostly rustic enthusiasts, who knew no Latin, but spoke Punic; it has been suggested that they may have been of Berber blood. They joined the ranks of the Donatists, and were called by them agnostici and "soldiers of Christ", but in fact were brigands. Troops of them were to be met in all parts of Africa. They had no regular occupation, but ran about armed, like madmen. They used no swords, on the ground that St. Peter had been told to put his sword into its sheath; but they did continual acts of violence with clubs, which they called "Israelites". They bruised their victims without killing them, and left them to die. In St. Augustine's time, however, they took to swords and all sorts of weapons; they rushed about accompanied by unmarried women, played, and drank. They battle-cry was Deo laudes, and no bandits were more terrible to meet. They frequently sought death, counting suicide as martyrdom. They were especially fond of flinging themselves from precipices; more rarely they sprang into the water or fire. Even women caught the infection, and those who had sinned would cast themselves from the cliffs, to atone for their fault. Sometimes the Circumcellions sought death at the hands of others, either by paying men to kill them, by threatening to kill a passer-by if he would not kill them, or by their violence inducing magistrates to have them executed. While paganism still flourished, they would come in vast crowds to any great sacrifice, not to destroy the idols, but to be martyred. Theodoret says a Circumcellion was accustomed to announce his intention of becoming a martyr long before the time, in order to be well treated and fed like a beast for slaughter. He relates an amusing story (Haer. Fab., IV, vi) to which St. Augustine also refers. A number of these fanatics, fattened like pheasants, met a young man and offered him a drawn sword to smite them with, threatening to murder him if he refused. He pretended to fear that when he had killed a few, the rest might change their minds and avenge the deaths of their fellows; and he insisted that they must all be bound. They agreed to this; when they were defenceless, the young man gave each of them a beating and went his way.

When in controversy with Catholics, the Donatist bishops were not proud of their supporters. They declared that self-precipitation from a cliff had been forbidden in the councils. Yet the bodies of these suicides were sacrilegiously honoured, and crowds celebrated their anniversaries. Their bishops could not but conform, and they were often glad enough of the strong arms of the Circumcellions. Theodoret, soon after St. Augustine's death, knew of no other Donatists than the Circumcellions; and these were the typical Donatists in the eyes of all outside Africa. They were especially dangerous to the Catholic clergy, whose houses they attacked and pillaged. They beat and wounded them, put lime and vinegar on their eyes, and even forced them to be rebaptized. Under Axidus and Fasir, "the leaders of the Saints" in Numidia, property and roads were unsafe, debtors were protected, slaves were set in their masters' carriages, and the masters made to run before them. At length, the Donatist bishops invited a general named Taurinus to repress these extravagances. He met with resistance in a place named Octava, and the altars and tablets to be seen there in St. Optatus's time testified to the veneration given to the Circumcellions who were slain; but their bishops denied them the honour due to martyrs. It seems that in 336-7 the proefectus proetorio of Italy, Gregory took some measures against the Donatists, for St. Optatus tells us that Donatus wrote him a letter beginning: "Gregory, stain on the senate and disgrace to the prefects".

THE "PERSECUTION" OF MACARIUS

When Constantine became master of the East by defeating Licinius in 323, he was prevented by the rise of Arianism in the East from sending, as he had hoped, Eastern bishops to Africa, to adjust the differences between the Donatists and the Catholics. Caecilian of Carthage was present at the Council of Nicea in 325, and his successor, Gratus, was at that of Sardica in 342. The conciliabulum of the Easterns on that occasion wrote a letter to Donatus, as though he were the true Bishop of Carthage; but the Arians failed to gain the support of the Donatists, who looked upon the whole East as cut off from the Church, which survived in Africa alone. The Emperor Constans was an anxious as his father to give peace to Africa. In 347 he sent thither two commissioners, Paulus and Macarius, with large sums of money for distribution. Donatus naturally saw in this an attempt to win over his adherents to the Church by bribery; he received the envoys with insolence: "What has the emperor to do with the Church?" said he, and he forbade his people to accept any largess from Constans. In most parts, however, the friendly mission seems to have been not unfavourably received. But at Bagai in Numidia the bishop, Donatus, assembled the Circumcellions of the neighbourhood, who had already been excited by their bishops. Macarius was obliged to ask for the protection of the military. The Circumcellions attacked them, and killed two or three soldiers; the troops then became uncontrollable, and slew some of the Donatists. This unfortunate incident was thereafter continually thrown in the teeth of the Catholics, and they were nicknamed Macarians by the Donatists, who declared that Donatus of Bagai had been precipitated from a rock, and that another bishop, Marculus, had been thrown into a well. The existing Acts of two other Donatist martyrs of 347, Maximian and Isaac, are preserved; they apparently belong to Carthage, and are attributed by Harnack to the antipope Macrobius. It seems that after violence had begun, the envoys ordered the Donatists to unite with the Church whether they willed or no. Many of the bishops took flight with their partisans; a few joined the Catholics; the rest were banished. Donatus the Great died in exile. A Donatist named Vitellius composed a book to show that the servants of God are hated by the world.

A solemn Mass was celebrated in each place where the union was completed, and the Donatists set about a rumour that images (obviously of the emperor) were to be placed in the altar and worshipped. As nothing of the sort was found to be done, and as the envoys merely made a speech in favour of unity, it seems that the reunion was effected with less violence than might have been expected. The Catholics and their bishops praised God for the peace that ensued, though they declared that they had no responsibility for the action of Paulus and Macarius. In the following year Gratus, the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, held a council, in which the reiteration of baptism was forbidden, while, to please the rallied Donatists, traditors were condemned anew. It was forbidden to honour suicides as martyrs.

THE RESTORATION OF DONATISM BY JULIAN

The peace was happy for Africa, and the forcible means by which it was obtained were justified by the violence of the sectaries. But the accession of Julian the Apostate in 361 changed the face of affairs. Delighted to throw Christianity into confusion, Julian allowed the Catholic bishops who had been exiled by Constantius to return to the sees which the Arians were occupying. The Donatists, who had been banished by Constans, were similarly allowed to return at their own petition, and received back their basilicas. Scenes of violence were the result of this policy both in the East and the West. "Your fury", wrote St. Optatus, "returned to Africa at the same moment that the devil was set free", for the same emperor restored supremacy to paganism and the Donatists to Africa. The decree of Julian was considered so discreditable to them, that the Emperor Honorius in 405 had it posted up throughout Africa for their shame. St. Optatus gives a vehement catalogue of the excesses committed by the Donatists on their return. They invaded the basilicas with arms; they committed so many murders that a report of them was sent to the emperor. Under the orders of two bishops, a party attacked the basilica of Lemellef; they stripped off the roof, pelted with tiles the deacons who were round the altar, and killed two of them. In Maruetania riots signalized the return of the Donatists. In Numidia two bishops availed themselves of the complaisance of the magistrates to throw a peaceful population into confusion, expelling the faithful, wounding the men, and not sparing the women and children. Since they did not admit the validity of the sacraments administered by traditors, when they seized the churches they cast the Holy Eucharist to the dogs; but the dogs, inflamed with madness, attacked their own masters. An ampulla of chrism thrown out of a window was found unbroken on the rocks. Two bishops were guilty of rape; one of these seized the aged Catholic bishop and condemned him to public penance. All Catholics whom they could force to join their party were made penitents, even clerics of every rank, and children, contrary to the law of the Church. some for a year, some for a month, some but for a day. In taking possession of a basilica, they destroyed the altar, or removed it, or at least scraped the surface. They sometimes broke up the chalices, and sold the materials. They washed pavements, walls, and columns. Not content with recovering their churches, they employed pagan functionaries to obtain for them possession of the sacred vessels, furniture, altar-linen, and especially the books (how did they purify the book? asks St. Optatus), sometimes leaving the Catholic congregation with no books at all. The cemeteries were closed to the Catholic dead.

The revolt of Firmus, a Mauretanian chieftain who defied the Roman power and eventually assumed the style of emperor (366-72), was undoubtedly supported by many Donatists. The imperial laws against them were strengthened by Valentinian in 373 and by Gratian, who wrote in 377 to the vicar of prefects, Flavian (himself a Donatist), ordering all the basilicas of the schismatics to be given up to the Catholics. St. Augustine shows that even the churches which the Donatists themselves had built were included. The same emperor required Claudian, the Donatist bishop at Rome, to return to Africa; as he refused to obey, a Roman council had him driven a hundred miles from the city. It is probable that the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, Genethlius, caused the laws to be mildly administered in Africa.

ST. OPTATUS

The Catholic champion, St. Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, published his great work "De schismate Donatistarum" in answer to that of the Donatist Bishop of Carthage, Parmenianus, under Valentinian and Valens, 364-375 (so St. Jerome). Optatus himself tells us that he was writing after the death of Julian (363) and more than sixty years after the beginning of the schism (he means the persecution of 303). The form which we possess is a second edition, brought up to date by the author after the accession of Pope Siricius (Dec., 384), with a seventh book added to the original six. In the first book he describes the origin and growth of the schism; in the second he shows the notes of the true Church; in the third he defends the Catholics from the charge of persecuting, with especial reference to the days of Macarius. In the fourth book he refutes Parmenianus's proofs from Scripture that the sacrifice of a sinner is polluted. In the fifth book he shows the validity of baptism even when conferred by sinners, for it is conferred by Christ, the minister being the instrument only. This is the first important statement of the doctrine that the grace of the sacraments is derived from the opus operatum of Christ independently of the worthiness of the minister. In the sixth book he describes the violence of the Donatists and the sacrilegious way in which they had treated Catholic altars. In the seventh book he treats chiefly of unity and of reunion, and returns to the subject of Macarius.

He calls Parmenianus "brother", and wishes to treat the Donatists as brethren, since they were not heretics. Like some other Fathers, he holds that only pagans and heretics go to hell; schismatics and all Catholics will eventually be saved after a necessary purgatory. This is the more curious, because before him and after him in Africa Cyprian and Augustine both taught that schism is as bad as heresy, if not worse. St. Optatus was much venerated by St. Augustine and later by St. Fulgentius. He writes with vehemence, sometimes with violence, in spite of his protestations of friendliness; but he is carried away by his indignation. His style is forcible and effective, often concise and epigrammatic. To this work he appended a collection of documents containing the evidence for the history he had related. This dossier had certainly been formed much earlier, at all events before the peace of 347, and not long after the latest document it contains, which is dated Feb., 330; the rest are not later than 321, and may possibly have been put together as early as that year. Unfortunately these important historical testimonies have come down to us only in a single mutilated manuscript, the archetype of which was also incomplete. The collection was freely used at the conference of 411 and is often quoted at some length by St. Augustine, who has preserved many interesting portions which would otherwise be unknown to us.

THE MAXIMIANISTS

Before Augustine took up the mantle of Optatus together with a double portion of his spirit, the Catholics had gained new and victorious arguments from the divisions among the Donatists themselves. Like so many other schisms, this schism bred schisms within itself. In Mauretania and Numidia these separated sects were so numerous that the Donatists themselves could not name them all. We hear of Urbanists; of Claudianists, who were reconciled to the main body by Primianus of Carthage; of Rogatists, a Mauretanian sect, of mild character, because no Circumcellion belonged to it; the Rogatists were severely punished whenever the Donatists could induce the magistrates to do so, and were also persecuted by Optatus of Timgad. But the most famous sectaries were the Maximianists, for the story of their separation from the Donatists reproduces with strange exactitude that of the withdrawal of the Donatists themselves from the communion of the Church; and the conduct of the Donatists towards them was so inconsistent with their avowed principles, that it became in the skilled hands of Augustine the most effective weapon of all his controversial armoury.

Primianus, Donatist Bishop of Carthage, excommunicated the deacon Maximianus. The latter (who was, like Majorinus, supported by a lady) got together a council of forty-three bishops, who summoned Primianus to appear before them. The primate refused, insulted their envoys, tried to have them prevented from celebrating the Sacred Mysteries, and had stones thrown at them in the street. The council summoned him before a greater council, which met to the number of a hundred bishops at Cebarsussum in June, 393. Primianus was deposed; all clerics were to leave his communion within eight days; if they should delay till after Christmas, they would not be permitted to return to the Church even after penance; the laity were allowed until the following Easter, under the same penalty. A new bishop of Carthage was appointed in the person of Maximian himself, and was consecrated by twelve bishops. The partisans of Primianus were rebaptized, if they had been baptized after the permitted delay. Primianus stood out, and demanded to be judged by a Numidian council; three hundred and ten bishops met at Bagai in April, 394; the primate did not take the place of an accused person, but himself presided. He was of course acquitted, and the Maximianists were condemned without a hearing. All but the twelve consecrators and their abettors among the clergy of Carthage were given till Christmas to return; after this period they would be obliged to do penance. This decree, composed in eloquent style by Emeritus of Caesarea, and adopted by acclamation, made the Donatists hence-forward ridiculous through their having readmitted schismatics without penance. Maximian's church was razed to the ground, and after the term of grace had elapsed, the Donatists persecuted the unfortunate Maximianists, representing themselves as Catholics, and demanding that the magistrates should enforce against the new sectaries the very laws which Catholics emperors had drawn up against Donatism. Their influence enabled them to do this, for they were still far more numerous than the Catholics, and the magistrates must often have been of their party. In the reception of those who returned from the party of Maximian they were yet more fatally inconsequent. The rule was theoretically adhered to that all who had been baptized in the schism must be rebaptized; but if a bishop returned, he and his whole flock were admitted without rebaptism. This was allowed even in the case of two of the consecrators of Maximian, Praetextatus of Assur and Felixianus of Musti, after the proconsul had vainly tried to expel them from their sees, and although a Donatist bishop, Rogatus, had already been appointed at Assur. In another case the party of Primianus was more consistent. Salvius, the Maximianist Bishop of Membresa, was another of the consecrators. He was twice summoned by the proconsul to retire in favour of the Primianist Restitutus. As he was much respected by the people of Membresa, a mob was brought over from the neighbouring town of Abitene to expel him; the aged bishop was beaten, and made to dance with dead dogs tied around his neck. But his people built him a new church, and three bishops coexisted in this small town, a Maximianist, a Primianist, and a Catholic.

The leader of the Donatists at this time was Optatus, Bishop of Thamugadi (Timgad), called Gildonianus, from his friendship with Gildo, the Count of Africa (386-397). For ten years Optatus, supported by Gildo, was the tyrant of Africa. He persecuted the Rogatists and Maximianists, and he used troops against the Catholics. St. Augustine tells us that his vices and cruelties were beyond description; but they had at least the effect of disgracing the cause of the Donatists, for though he was hated throughout Africa for his wickedness and his evil deeds, yet the Puritan faction remained always in full communion with this bishop, who was a robber, a ravisher, an oppressor, a traitor, and a monster of cruelty. When Gildo fell in 397, after having made himself master of Africa for a few months, Optatus was thrown into a prison, in which he died.

SAINT AUGUSTINE

St. Augustine began his victorious campaign against Donatism soon after he was ordained priest in 391. His popular psalm or "Abecedarium" against the Donatists was intended to make known to the people the arguments set forth by St. Optatus, with the same conciliatory end in view. It shows that the sect was founded by traditors, condemned by pope and council, separated from the whole world, a cause of division, violence, and bloodshed; the true Church is the one Vine, whose branches are over all the earth. After St. Augustine had become bishop in 395, he obtained conferences with some of the Donatist leaders, though not with his rival at Hippo. In 400 he wrote three books against the letter of Parmenianus, refuting his calumnies and his arguments from Scripture. More important were his seven books on baptism, in which, after developing the principle already laid down by St. Optatus, that the effect of the sacrament is independent of the holiness of the minister, he shows in great detail that the authority of St. Cyprian is more awkward than convenient for the Donatists. The principal Donatist controversialist of the day was Petilianus, Bishop of Constantine, a successor of the traditor Silvanus. St. Augustine wrote two books in reply to a letter of his against the Church, adding a third book to answer another letter in which he was himself attacked by Petilianus. Before this last book he published his "De Unitate ecclesiae" about 403. To these works must be added some sermons and some letters which are real treatises.

The arguments used by St. Augustine against Donatism fall under three heads. First we have the historical proofs of the regularity of Caecilian's consecration, of the innocence of Felix of Aptonga, of the guilt of the founders of the "Pure" Church, also the judgment given by pope, council, and emperor, the true history of Macarius, the barbarous behaviour of the Donatists under Julian, the violence of the Circumcellions, and so forth. Second, there are the doctrinal arguments: the proofs from the Old and New Testaments that the Church is Catholic, diffused throughout the world, and necessarily one and united; appeal is made to the See of Rome, where the succession of bishops is uninterrupted from St. Peter himself; St. Augustine borrows his list of popes from St. Optatus (Ep. li), and in his psalm crystallizes the argument into the famous phrase: "That is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail." A further appeal is to the Eastern Church, and especially to the Apostolic Churches to which St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. John addressed epistles - they were not in communion with the Donatists. The validity of baptism conferred by heretics, the impiety of rebaptizing, are important points. All these arguments were found in St. Optatus. Peculiar to St. Augustine is the necessity of defending St. Cyprian, and the third category is wholly his own. The third division comprises the argumentum ad hominem drawn from the inconsistency of the Donatists themselves: Secundus had pardoned the traditors; full fellowship was accorded to malefactors like Optatus Gildonianus and the Circumcellions; Tichonius turned against his own party; Maximian had divided from Primatus just as Majorinus from Caecilian; the Maximianists had been readmitted without rebaptism.

This last method of argument was found to be of great practical value, and many conversions were now taking place, largely on account of the false position in which the Donatists had placed themselves. This point had been especially emphasized by the Council of Carthage of Sept., 401, which had ordered information as to the treatment of the Maximianists to be gathered from magistrates. The same synod restored the earlier rule, long since abolished, that Donatist bishops and clergy should retain their rank if they returned to the Church. Pope Anastasius I wrote to the council urging the importance of the Donatist question. Another council in 403 organized public disputations with the Donatists. This energetic action roused the Circumcellions to new violence. The life of St. Augustine was endangered. His future biographer, St. Possidius of Calama, was insulted and ill-treated by a party led by a Donatist priest, Crispinus. The latter's bishop, also named Crispinus, was tried at Carthage and fined ten pounds of gold as a heretic, though the fine was remitted by Possidius. This is the first case known to us in which a Donatist is declared a heretic, but henceforth it is the common style for them. The cruel and disgusting treatment of Maximianus, Bishop of Bagai, is also related by St. Augustine in detail. The Emperor Honorius was induced by the Catholics to renew the old laws against the Donatists at the beginning of 405. Some good resulted, but the Circumcellions of Hippo were excited to new violence. The letter of Petilianus was defended by a grammarian named Cresconius, against whom St. Augustine published a reply in four books. The third and fourth books are especially important, as in these he argues from the Donatists' treatment of the Maximianists, quotes the Acts of the Council of Cirta held by Secundus, and cites other important documents. The saint also replied to a pamphlet by Petilianus, "De unico baptismate".

THE "COLLATIO" OF 411

St. Augustine had once hoped to conciliate the Donatists by reason only. The violence of the Circumcellions, the cruelties of Optatus of Thamugadi, the more recent attacks on Catholic bishops had all given proof that repression by the secular arm was absolutely unavoidable. It was not necessarily a case of persecution for religious opinions, but simply one of the protection of life and property and the ensuring of freedom and safety for Catholics. Nevertheless the laws went much further than this. Those of Honorius were promulgated anew in 408 and 410. In 411 the method of disputation was organized on a grand scale by order of the emperor himself at the request of the Catholic bishops. Their case was now complete and unanswerable. But this was to be brought home to the people of Africa, and public opinion was to be forced to recognize the facts, by a public exposure of the weakness of the separatist position. The emperor sent an official named Marcellinus, an excellent Christian, to preside as cognitor at the conference. He issued a proclamation declaring that he would exercise absolute impartiality in his conduct of the proceedings and in his final judgment. The Donatist bishops who should come to the conference were to receive back for the present the basilicas which had been taken from them. The number of those who arrived at Carthage was very large, though somewhat less that the two hundred and seventy-nine whose signatures were appended to a letter to the president. The Catholic bishops numbered two hundred and eighty-six. Marcellinus decided that each party should elect seven disputants, who alone should speak, seven advisers whom they might consult, and four secretaries to keep the records. Thus only thirty-six bishops would be present in all. The Donatists pretended that this was a device to prevent their great numbers being known; but the Catholics did not object to all of them being present, provided no disturbance was caused.

The chief Catholic speaker, besides the amiable and venerable Bishop of Carthage, Aurelius, was of course Augustine, whose fame had already spread through the whole Church. His friend, Alypius of Tagaste, and his disciple and biographer, Possidius, were also among the seven. The principal Donatist speakers were Emeritus of Caesarea in Mauretania (Cherchel) and Petilianus of Constantine (Cirta); the latter spoke or interrupted about a hundred and fifty times, until on the third day he was so hoarse that he had to desist. The Catholics made a generous proposal that any Donatist bishop who should join the Church, should preside alternately with the Catholic bishop in the episcopal chair, unless the people should object, in which case both must resign and a new election be made. The conference was held on the 1, 3, and 8 June. The policy of the Donatists was to raise technical objections, to cause delay, and by all manner of means to prevent the Catholic disputants from stating their case. The Catholic case was, however, clearly enunciated on the first day in letters which were read, addressed by the Catholic bishops to Marcellinus and to their deputies to instruct them in the procedure. A discussion of important points was arrived at only on the third day, amid many interruptions. It was then evident that the unwillingness of the Donatists to have a real discussion was due to the fact that they could not reply to the arguments and documents brought forward by the Catholics. The insincerity as well as the inconsequence and clumsiness of the sectaries did them great harm. The main doctrinal points and historical proofs of the Catholics were made perfectly plain. The cognitor summed up in favor of the Catholic bishops. The churches which had been provisionally restored to the Donatists were to be given up; their assemblies were forbidden under grave penalties. The lands of those who permitted Circumcellions on their property were to be confiscated. The minutes of this great conference were submitted to all the speakers for their approval, and the report of each speech (mostly only a single sentence) was signed by the speaker as a guarantee of its accuracy. We possess these manuscripts in full only as far as the middle of the third day; for the rest only the headings of each little speech are preserved. These headings were composed by order of Marcellinus in order to facilitate reference. On account of the dullness and a length of the full report, St. Augustine composed a popular resume of the discussions in his "Breviculus Collationis", and went with more detail into a few points in a final pamphlet, "Ad Donatistas post Collationem".

On 30 Jan., 412, Honorius issued a final law against the Donatists, renewing old legislation and adding a scale of fines for Donatist clergy, and for the laity and their wives: the illustres were to pay fifty pounds of gold, the spectabiles forty, the senatores and sacerdotales thirty, the clarissimi and principales twenty, the decuriones, negotiatores, and plebeii five, which Circumcellions were to pay ten pounds of silver. Slaves were to be reproved by their masters, coloni were to be constrained by repeated beatings. All bishops and clerics were exiled from Africa. In 414 the fines were increased for those of high rank: a proconsul, vicar, or count was fined two hundred pounds of gold, and a senator a hundred. A further law was published in 428. The good Marcellinus, who had become the friend of St. Augustine, fell a victim (it is supposed) to the rancour of the Donatists; for he was put to death in 413, as though an accomplice in the revolt of Heraclius, Count of Africa, in spite of the orders of the emperor, who did not believe him guilty. Donatism was now discredited by the conference and proscribed by the persecuting laws of Honorius. The Circumcellions made some dying efforts, and a priest was killed by them at Hippo. It does not seem that the decrees were rigidly carried out, for the Donatist clergy was still found in Africa. The ingenious Emeritus was at Caesarea in 418, and at the wish of Pope Zosimus St. Augustine had a conference with him, without result. But on the whole Donatism was dead. Even before the conference the Catholic Bishops in Africa were considerably more numerous than the Donatists, except in Numidia. From the time of the invasion of the Vandals in 430 little is heard of them until the days of St. Gregory the Great, when they seem to have revived somewhat, for the pope complained to the Emperor Maurice that the laws were not strictly enforced. They finally disappeared with the irruptions of the Saracens.

DONATIST WRITERS

There seems to have been no lack of literary activity among the Donatists of the fourth century, though little remains to us. The works of Donatus the Great were known to St. Jerome, but have not been preserved. His book on the Holy Spirit is said by that Father to have been Arian in doctrine. It is possible that the Pseudo-Cyprianic "De singularitate clericorum" is by Macrobius; and the "Adversus aleatores" is by an antipope, either Donatist or Novatianist. The arguments of Parmenianus and Cresconius are known to us, though their works are lost; but Monceaux has been able to restore from St. Augustine's citations short works by Petilianus of Constantine and Gaudentius of Thamugadi, and also a libellus by a certain Fulgentius, from the citations in the Pseudo-Augustinian "Contra Fulgentium Donatistam". Of Tichonius, or Tyconius, we still possess the treatise "De Septem regulis" (P.L., XVIII; new ed. by Professor Burkitt, in Cambridge "Texts and Studies", III, 1, 1894) on the interpretation of Holy Scripture. His commentary on the Apocalypse is lost; it was used by Jerome, Primasius, and Beatus in their commentaries on the same book. Tichonius is chiefly celebrated for his views on the Church, which were quite inconsistent with Donatism, and which Parmenianus tried to refute. In the famous words of St. Augustine (who often refers to his illogical position and to the force with which her argued against the cardinal tenets of his own sect): "Tichonius assailed on all sides by the voices of the holy pages, awoke and saw the Church of God diffused throughout the world, as had been foreseen and foretold of her so long before by the hearts and mouths of the saints. And seeing this, he undertook to demonstrate and assert against his own party that no sin of man, however villainous and monstrous, can interfere with the promises of God, nor can any impiety of any persons within the Church cause the word of God to be made void as to the existence and diffusion of the Church to the ends of the earth, which was promised to the Fathers and now is manifest" (Contra Ep. Parmen., I, i).

JOHN CHAPMAN

Donatus of Fiesole

Irish teacher and poet, Bishop of Fiesole, about 829-876. In an ancient collection of the "Vitae Patrum", of which an eleventh-century copy exists in the Laurentian library of Florence, there is an account of the life of Donatus, from which we glean the following facts. Donatus was born in Ireland, of a noble family. About 816 he visited the tombs of the Apostles in Rome. On his journey northwards he was led by Divine Providence to the city of Fiesole, which he entered at the moment when the people were grouped around their altars praying for a bishop to deliver them from the evils, temporal and spiritual, which afflicted them. Raised by popular acclaim to the See of Fiesole, Donatus instituted a revival of piety and learning in the Church over which he was placed. He himself did not disdain to teach "the art of metrical composition". The "Life" is interspersed with short poems written by the saintly bishop. The best known of these is the twelve-line poem in which he describes the beauty and fertility of his native land, and the prowess and piety of its inhabitants. Donatus also composed an epitaph in which he alludes to his birth in Ireland, his years in the service of the princes of Italy (Lothair and Louis), his episcopate at Fiesole, and his activity as a teacher of grammar and poetry.

WILLIAM TURNER

Peter Donders

Missionary among the lepers, b. at Tilburg in Holland, 27 Oct., 1807; d. 14 Jan., 1887. He desired from his early childhood to be a priest, but he had to begin life as a worker in a factory. He afterwards became a servant in a college where he learned a little and made great progress in virtue. Later a benefactor enabled him to pursue his theological studies in the College of Herlaar. A chance reading of the "Annals of the Propagation of the Faith" determined his vocation for foreign missions. He was accepted in 1839 for Dutch Guiana as a missionary, ordained priest the following year, and in 1842 arrived at Paramaribo to begin his long apostolic career. He laboured with success among the blacks in the plantations, and by 1850 had instructed and baptized 1200. In the epidemic of 1851 his labours were superhuman, till, like his fellow-priests, he too became a victim. Before he was convalescent he not only resumed his work among the blacks, but extended it to the Indians of Saramaca. In 1855 he took up his residence in Batavia where for nearly thirty-two years he ministered to 600 lepers. He left them only to visit the blacks and Indians. In 1865 the whole colony was confided to the Redemptorist Fathers by the Holy See and the King of Holland. Father Donders at once asked to be of their number and was received in Paramaribo, in 1867, by Monsignor Swinkels, the first Redemptorist vicar Apostolic. After this he went back to his charge. He studied music to cheer his afflicted children, and though given an assistant he laboured to the end. The process for his beatification has been placed before the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

J. MATNIER

Thomas Dongan

Second Earl of Limerick, b. 1634, at Castletown Kildrought, now Celbridge, County Kildare, Ireland; d. at London, 1715. He was the youngest son of Sir John Dongan, Baronet, Member of the Irish Parliament; an uncle, Richard Talbot, was afterwards created Earl of Tyrconnel, Lieutenant-Governor of Ireland; and another, Sir Robert, married Grace, daughter of Lord Calvert, Baron of Baltimore. At the death of Charles I, the family, devoted to the Stuarts, removed to France. Thomas served in an Irish regiment, participated in all Turenne's campaigns under the name of D'Unguent and rose to the rank of colonel in 1674. After the Treaty of Nimeguen (1678) he returned to England in obedience to the order of the English Government recalling all British subjects in French service. Through the Duke of York, a fellow-officer under Turenne, he was appointed to high rank in the army designated for service in Flanders, and was granted an annual pension of £500. The same year (1678) he was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Tangiers. In 1682 the Duke of York, the Lord Proprietor, selected Dongan to govern the Province of New York, then bankrupt and in a state of rebellion. In this office Dongan proved himself an able lawgiver, and left an indelible mark on political and constitutional history. He convened the first representative assembly of New York Province on 14 Oct., 1683, at Fort James within the present boundaries of the city of New York. This assembly, under the wise supervision of Dongan, passed an act entitled "A Charter of Liberties"; decreed that the supreme legislative power under the Duke of York shall reside in a governor, council, and the people convened in general assembly; conferred upon the members of the assembly rights and privileges making them a body coequal to and independent of the British Parliament; established town, county, and general courts of justice; solemnly proclaimed the right of religious liberty; and passed acts enunciating certain constitutional liberties, e.g. no taxation without representation; taxes could be levied only by the people met in general assembly; right of suffrage; no martial law or quartering of the soldiers without the consent of the inhabitants; election by majority of votes; and the English law of real property.

Thus to Dongan's term as governor can be dated the Magna Charta of American constitutional liberties, for his system of government became the programme of continuous political agitation by the colonists of New York Province during the eighteenth century. It developed naturally into the present state government, and many of its principles passed into the framework of the Federal Government. Moreover, a rare tribute to his genius, the government imposed by him on New York Province, 1683, was adopted by England after the American War of Independence as the framework of her colonial policy, and constitutes the present form of government in Canada, Australia, and the Transvaal. Dongan signed the Charter of Liberties 30 Oct., 1683, and on the following day solemnly proclaimed it at the City Hall of New York City. The Duke of York signed and sealed the Charter 4 Oct., 1684; but never returned it, probably for reasons of prudence, for at the time Charles II had, by a quo warranto proceeding, abolished the Charters of New England, and the Charter of Pennsylvania granted in 1684 distinctly admits the right of Parliament to tax the colonies. Dongan established the boundary lines of the province by settling disputes with Connecticut on the East, with the French Governor of Canada on the North, with Pennsylvania on the South, thus marking out the present limits of New York State. By treaty with the Indians made at Albany, New York, 1684, in presence of Lord Howard, Governor of Virginia, Dongan obtained the written submission of the Iroquois to the Great Sachem Charles, on two white deer-skins, and outlined the masterly Indian policy which kept the Five Nations friends of England and a barrier between the English and French possessions in North America, a policy afterwards maintained with success by Sir William Johnson. At the death of Charles II, 1685, James Duke of York was proclaimed king, and New York became a royal province.

The Board of Trade and Plantations, under whose supervision the province passed, vetoed the Charter of Liberties and James approved the veto. The colonists were disappointed, but such was the moral strength of Governor Dongan that we find no trace of popular resentment. In 1685 Dongan established a post office in New York for the better correspondence of the colonies in America. In 1686 he granted charters to the cities of New York and Albany; the former remained unchanged for 135 years and forms the basis of the existing city government; the latter was superseded only in 1870, notwithstanding the extraordinary development in civil and political institutions. Dongan established a college under the direction of the Jesuit Fathers Harvey (his own private chaplain), Harrison, and Gage in New York City, and advised that the King's Farm, a tract beyond the walls of the then existing city, be set aside for its maintenance. The king vetoed the grant, and in 1705 this land became the property of Trinity Church. He planned that a mission of English Jesuits be permanently established at Saratoga, New York, on land purchased by him for the purpose; that a settlement of Irish Catholics be founded in the centre of the Province; and that an expedition be made to explore the Mississippi River and take possession of the great valley then made known by the explorations of La Salle. These plans were set aside by the king.

In 1687, the Assembly of New York was dissolved by the king, and in 1688 Andros was appointed Governor of the consolidated Provinces of New York and New England. Dongan refused command of a regiment with the rank of major-general, retired to his estate on Staten Island, New York, but was obliged to flee for safety in the religious persecution aroused by Lesler in 1689. In 1691 he returned to England. By the death of his brother William (1698), late Governor of the Province of Munster, Ireland, whose only son, Colonel Walter, Lord Dongan, was killed at the battle of the Boyne, Dongan became Earl of Limerick. In 1702 he was recognized as successor to his brother's estates, but only on payment of claims of the purchasers from the Earl of Athlone. Dongan died poor and without direct heirs. By will, dated 1713, he provided that he be buried at an expense of not over £100, and left the residue of his estate to his niece, wife of Colonel Nugent, afterwards Marshal of France. The tribute of history to his personal charm, his integrity, and character, is outspoken and universal. His public papers give evidence of a keen mind and a sense of humour. He was a man of courage, tact, and capacity, an able diplomat, and a statesman of prudence and remarkable foresight. In spite the brief term of five years as Governor of New York Province, by virtue of the magnitude, of the enduring and far-reaching character of his achievements, he stands forth as one of the greatest constructive statesmen ever sent out by England for the government of any of her American colonial possessions.

Colonial Laws of New York State (Albany, 1894); New York Colonial Documents, III, London Documents (Albany, 1853); IX, Paris Documents (Albany, 1855); O'CALLAGHAN, Documentary History of New York, 4 Vol. Ed. (Albany, 1850), I, III; Ecclesiastical Records of New York (Albany), II, p. 877; SMITH, History of New York (London, 1776); BRODHEAD, History of State of New York (New York, 1859), II; Great Britain's Calendar of State Papers, 1681-85; COLDEN, History of the Five Nations (3d ed., London, 1775), I; CHALMER, Revolt of the Colonies (Boston, 1845); LAMB, History of City of New York (New York, 1877); WILSON, Memorial History of New York (New York, 1892); WINDSOR, Narrative and Critical History of America (Boston, 1884), II; DOYLE, The Middle Colonies (London, 1907); DANAHER, Thomas Dongan, Second Earl of Limerick (Albany, 1889); OSGOOD, The American Colonies in the XVII Century (London, 1907), III; BRUCE, The Empire State in Three Centuries (New York), I; DRISCOLL, The Charter of Liberties and the New York Assembly of 1683, in U.S. CATHOLIC HISTORICAL SOCIETY, Records and Studies (New York, 1906), IV; DEALY in Mag. Of Am. Hist. (Feb., 1882), p. 106; CLARKE in Catholic World, IX, 767; Journal of Co. Kildare Archæological Society, IV, No. 5.

JOHN T. DRISCOLL

Andrew Donlevy

Educator, b. in 1694, probably in Sligo, Ireland; date and place of death uncertain. Little is known about his early life. With the penal laws then rigorously enforced it was difficult to obtain an education at home; and when he went abroad to study for the priesthood he must have gone in disguise, going abroad for any such purpose being a crime. However, he reached Paris in 1710 and became a student at the Irish College. His clerical course finished, he was ordained priest, and in 1728 was appointed prefect in the college, an office he held till 1746. He had also attended lectures at the university, graduating both in theology and law. While holding the office of prefect, he drew up a new code of rules for the government of the college, placing it under the control of the Archbishop of Paris and subject to the university. He also published in 1742 an Irish-English catechism of the Christian Doctrine, an edition of which appeared in Dublin in 1848.

E.A. D'ALTON

St. Donnan

There were apparently three or four saints of this name who flourished about the seventh century.

(1) ST. DONNAN, ABBOT OF EIGG, and ST. DONNAN OF AUCHTERLESS are regarded by both the Bollandists and Dempster as different personages, but there is so much confusion in their chronology and repetition in what is known of them, that it seems more probable that they were identical. Reeves (Adamnan's Life of St. Columba), moreover, accepts them as the same without discussion. According to Irish annals St. Donnan was a friend and disciple of St. Columba, who followed him from Ireland to Scotland toward the end of the sixth century. Seeking a solitary retreat, he and his companions settled on the island of Eigg, off the west coast of Scotland, then used only to pasture sheep belonging to the queen of the country. Informed of this invasion, the queen ordered that all should forthwith be slain. Her agents, probably a marauding band of Picts, or pirates according to one account, arrived during the celebration of Mass on Easter eve. Being requested to wait until the Sacrifice was concluded, they did so, and then St. Donnan and his fifty-one companions gave themselves up to the sword. This was in 617. Reeves mentions eleven churches dedicated to St. Donnan; in that at Auchterless his pastoral staff was preserved up to the Reformation and is said to have worked miracles. The island of Eigg was still Catholic in 1703 and St. Donnan's memory venerated there (Martin, Journey to the Western Islands, London, 1716).

(2) SON OF LIATH, and nephew and disciple of St. Senan, in whose life it is related that by his uncle's direction he restored to life two boys who had been drowned. This St. Donnan succeeded St. Ciaran of Clonmacnoise as Abbot of Aingin, an island in Lough Ree, on the Shannon (now Hare Island). He flourished about the middle of the sixth century.

(3) ST. DONNAN THE DEACON, son of Beoadh and brother of St. Ciaran. He was a monk in his brother's monastery at Cluain, or Clonmacnoise, in Ireland, in the sixth century.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Georg Raphael Donner

Austrian sculptor, b. at Essling, Austria, 25 May, 1692; d. at Vienna, 15 February, 1741. It is said his fancy was first kindled by the works of art at Heiligenkreuz. He received his technical training in the Academy at Vienna; in 1724 he entered the imperial service, and in 1729 passed to that of Prince Esterházy. Donner's work stands out with prominence in a period given over to mannerism, but he is sometimes more mindful of elegance than of character in his subject. He had a true sense of the beautiful, was lifelike and noble in his conceptions, and represents for South Germany and Austria a classic reaction against rococo methods. Among his productions are the marble statue of Charles VI and two bronze reliefs in the Belvedere at Vienna, the fountain for the old Town Hall, Vienna, representing "Andromeda and Perseus", the marble reliefs of "Hagar" and the "Samaritan Woman", and many busts and statues in different palaces and gardens. In Pressburg he made the equestrian statue of St. Martin, and the decorations for the burial chapel of the Primate Emmerich Esterházy. Youthful productions (1726) are the marble figures at Mirabell Castle, Salzburg. Donner is best known to-day by his famous fountain (1738-1739) of the Neuen Markt, Vienna; "Providence" or "Foresight", a classic female figure, forms the apex, while lower down four sporting children, each holding a water-spouting fish, embody the four rivers of Austria proper that flow into the Danube. Donner's two brothers, Sebastian and Matthäus, are generally numbered among his scholars. Sebastian was a talented sculptor, and produced various works, mostly in lead.

Matthäus Donner

Brother of the above, also a sculptor, b. 1704; d. 1756. He is known chiefly for his relief carvings and medals. He was appointed court-medallist, professor, and later rector of the Academy, and was employed by various princes. Among his medals may be mentioned one of Charles Albert of Bavaria, 1727, and various ones representing Maria Theresa. His medals are signed D. or M. D.

M.L. HANDLEY

Ferdinand-François-Auguste Donnet

A French cardinal, b. at Bourg-Argental (Loire), 1795; d. at Bordeaux, 1882. He studied in the seminary of St. Irenaeus at Lyons, taught at the college of Belley, was ordained priest in 1819, and, after some time spent at the Maison des hautes etudes founded by Cardinal Fesch, went to Irigny as pastor. From 1821 to 1827 he engaged in missionary work and then returned to Lyons to be made pastor of Villefranche. Appointed coadjutor to the Bishop of Nancy, 1835, he evinced such sterling qualities that two years later he was called to the archiepiscopal See of Bordeaux. During the forty-one years of his administration he showed a prodigious activity in every line of work, religious, social, and even material. To him are due the resumption of provincial councils; the restoration of many shrines like Arcachon, Verdelais, Notre-Dame de la fin-des-terres; the reconstruction of the Pey Berland tower, etc. Cardinal in 1852, and Senator of the Empire, he used his influence in favour of the pope, the liberty of teaching, and the repression of the irreligious press. At the Vatican Council he openly sided with the Ultramontanes like Plantier, Pie, etc. His affable disposition and cheerful character endeared him to his people, and few bishops have been loved and regretted as Donnet was. His eulogy was pronounced by Canon Laprie at the cathedral of Bordeaux, 1883, and by M. Boué at the academy of the same place, 1884. Cardinal Donnet's works comprise twelve volumes (8vo) of "Instructions pastorales, mandements, lettres, discours"; also "Lettres, discours et autres documents relatifs a la question romaine" (Bordeaux, 1865).

J.F. SOLLIER

Juan Francesco Maria de la Saludad Donoso Cortés

Marquess of Valdegamas, author and diplomat, born 6 May, 1809, at Valle de la Serena in the province of Estremadura, Spain; died 3 May, 1853, at Paris. His father, Pedro Donoso Cortés, was a descendant of Hernando Cortés, the conquistador. At the age of eleven, Donoso Cortés had finished his humanities, and at twelve had begun the study of law at the University of Salamanca; at sixteen he received his degree of licentiate from the University of Seville, and at eighteen became professor of literature at the College of Caceres. Carried away by the rationalism prevalent in Spain following upon the French invasions, he ardently embraced the principles of Liberalism and fell under the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whom he later characterized as "the most eloquent of sophists". In 1830 he went to Madrid and, with his characteristic energy, engaged in the political controversies of the day, espousing the cause of the reigning dynasty. A memoir addressed to Ferdinand VII on the situation of the Spanish monarchy, advocating the abolishment of the Salic Law, attracted wide attention and procured for him an official position under the Minister of Justice. But the revolutionary events of 1834 led him to reconsider the ground of his political liberalism, and drew a second brochure from his pen scathingly criticizing the revolutionary movement. On the death of Ferdinand, he remained a faithful adherent of the queen-mother Maria Cristina and of her infant daughter Isabella, whose title was disputed by Don Carlos in virtue of the Salie Law against the succession in the female line to the Spanish throne. In 1836, under the ministry of Mendizabal, he became secretary of the Council. In this same year he gave a brilliant course of lectures on political rights at the Athenæum of Madrid. In 1837 he was elected deputy to the Cortes from Cadiz. In 1840, following upon the revolution headed by Espartero, Duke of Victoria, he followed the exiled queen Maria Cristina to Paris in the post of private secretary. He accompanied her on her return after the overthrow of Espartero, 1843, and was appointed to the office of secretary and director of the studies of the young queen, Isabella, was created Marquess of Valdegamas, and entered the Senate. For his eloquent advocacy of the "Spanish marriages" (the simultaneous alliance of Isabella with Francesco of Assisi and of her sister with the Duke of Montpensier) he was made an officer of the Legion of Honour by Louis Philippe.

The death of a dearly beloved brother at this time made a profound impression upon Donoso Cortés. The mystery of human destiny assumed for him a new aspect, and from this time he became an ardent champion of the Catholic Church. On the 4th of January, 1849, he pronounced a remarkable discourse in the Cortes in which he publicly repudiated his Liberalistic principles, branding them as "sterile and disastrous ideas in which are comprehended all the errors of the past three centuries, intended to disturb and disrupt human society". In 1849 he represented Spain as minister plenipotentiary at the court of Berlin, and afterwards at Paris (1850-53), where he died.

The complete works of Donoso Cortés, with a biographical sketch by Gabino Tejado, were published in 1854-55 (Madrid). A translation into French of his principal works, with an introduction by Louis Veuillot, was published at Paris (1858-59). His most notable work is his "Ensayo sobre El Catolicismo, El Liberalismo y El Socialismo" (English translation, Philadelphia, 1862; Dublin,-). This work was written at the instance of Louis Veuillot, who was an intimate friend of the author, and places Donoso Cortés in the first rank of Catholic publicists. It is an exposition of the impotence of all human systems of philosophy to solve the problem of human destiny and of the absolute dependence of humanity upon the Catholic Church for its social and political salvation. Upon its publication the work was acrimoniously attacked by the Abbé Gaudel, Vicar-General of Orléans, in a series of articles in the "Ami de la Religion" and as vigorously defended by Louis Veuillot in "L'Univers". Donoso Cortés at once submitted his work to the Holy See, which refused to interdict it or any of the propositions declared heretical by the Abbé Gaudel. It remains to-day one of the most brilliant and profound expositions of the influence of Catholic truth upon human society from the pen of a publicist. In a notable series of letters, from 1849-53, to Count Raczyski, at that time Prussian ambassador at Madrid, Donoso Cortés gives a penetrating analysis of the social, political, and religious conditions of Europe, and with almost prophetic insight predicts the unification of Germany in a great empire under the Prussian monarchy as well as the political decadence of France and the latter's loss of Alsace and Lorraine.

TEJADO in Preface of complete works (Madrid, 1891); LEROUX in Les Contemporains, Année II, Vol. IV (Paris), p. 83.

CONDÉ B. PALLEN.

Pope Donus

(Or Domnus).

Son of a Roman called Mauricius; he was consecrated Bishop of Rome 2 Nov., 676, to succeed Adeodatus II, after an interval of four months and seventeen days; d. 11 April, 678. Of his life and acts but little is known. The "Liber Pontificalis" informs us that he paved the atrium or quadrangle in front of St. Peter's with great blocks of white marble. He also restored the church of St. Euphemia on the Appian Way, and repaired the basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, or, according to Duchesne's conjecture, the little church on the road to St. Paul's, which marks the spot where Sts. Peter and Paul are said to have parted on their way to martyrdom. During the pontificate of Donus, Reparatus, the Archbishop of Ravenna, returned to the obedience of the Holy See, thus ending the schism created by Archbishop Maurus who had aimed at making Ravenna autocephalous. In the time of this pope a colony of Nestorian monks was discovered in a Syrian monastery at Rome — the Monasterium Boetianum. The pope is said to have dispersed them through the various religious houses of the city, and to have given over their monastery to Roman monks. After a brief reign of one year, five months, and ten days, Donus died and was buried in St. Peter's. His portrait in mosaic was at one time to be seen in the church of St. Martina in the Forum.

THOMAS OESTREICH

Dora

A titular see of Palestina Prima. The name (Dôr) in Semitic languages means "dwelling", "abode". On the coming of the Hebrews, the King of Dora or Dor entered into the confederation against Josue and was defeated with the confederates (Jos., xi, 2; xii, 23). The town was first allotted to the tribe of Aser (Jos., xvii, 11), then given to Manasses (Judges, i, 27; I Par., vii, 29), who failed to expel the inhabitants and imposed on them a tribute; the Israelites may have captured only the upper city (Nafat Dôr), called Napheddor or Phenneddor by the Septuagint, and regiones or provincia Dor by the Vulgate. The Egyptian King Rameses III set up a Phœ;necian colony at Dora; according to Stephan of Byzantium the Phœ;necians settled there because the coast abounded in the shells that produced the famous Tyrian purple dye. Dora was united by David to the Kingdom of Israel and governed under Solomon by Benabinadab, one of the twelve prefects (III Kings, iv, 11). Later it underwent successively the rule of the Persians, the Greeks, and the Lagides. In 217 b.c. it was unsuccessfully besieged by Antiochus the Great; at a later date it was taken by the kings of Syria. In 139 b.c. the usurper Tryphon, who had taken refuge at Dora, was besieged by Antiochus (VII) Sidetes with a fleet, 120,000 foot, and 8000 horse (I Mach., xv, 13). The city then fell into the hands of a private individual called Zoilus, at whose death it was added by Alexander Jammæus to his Kingdom of Judea. When Pompey conquered Syria, he granted Dora an autonomous constitution; from this time dates its peculiar era, 64-63 b.c., known chiefly through numerous coins. As Dora had suffered much from the Jews, Gabinius rebuilt it (56 b.c.). In 42 of the Christian Era its inhabitants were still disputing with the Jews, whom they seem to have specially hated. In the time of Pliny the town was in a state of utter decay; St. Jerome speaks of "the ruins of that city (Dora) which had been formerly so powerful". He may have exaggerated its decay, or the city may have risen from its ruins.

As early as the fifth century it was the residence of a bishop, Sidus, and suffragan to Cæsarea; there is record also of Barachius in 518, John in 536, Stephen, the friend of St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem and the great opponent of Monothelism. In the Middle Ages Dora was called Pirgul, a corruption of Greek púrgos, "tower", according to Foucher of Chartres (Gesta Dei per Francos, ed. Bongars, 396); it was also known as Merla (Rey, Les colonies franques de Syrie, Paris, 1883, 422). There are records of five Latin bishops during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (Eubel, I, 235; II, 161). Another is mentioned in "Revue bénédictine" (1904), p. 62. Its modern Arabic name is Tantourah. Dora is a village of about 1500 inhabitants, on the seashore between Caifa and Cæsarea, nearer the latter. The harbour is frequented by small boats; the old port, situated more to the north, was enclosed by two headlands lengthened by two piers. To the east are vast quarries and the ancient necropolis. The ruins of the ancient city cover a space about four-fifths of a mile long by one-third broad. Many Jewish colonists have recently settled in the vicinity.

      GuÉrin, Description de la Palestine: Samarie (Paris, 1875), II, 305--315; Legendre in Dict. de la Bible, II, 1487-92; Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs (London, 1882), II, 7-11; Palestine Exploration Fund, Quart. Statement (1874), 12; (1887), 84.

S. VailhÉ

Abbey of Dorchester

Founded in 1140 by Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln, for Canons of the Order of St. Augustine (or Black Canons). Dorchester, an important Roman city of Mercia, about nine miles from Oxford, had been the seat of a bishopric from A.D. 634, when St. Birinus, the first bishop, was sent to that district by Pope Honorius, until 1085, when the See of Mercia was transferred to Lincoln. The abbey, founded fifty-five years later, was dedicated in honour of Sts. Peter, Paul, and Birinus, was richly endowed out of the lands and tithes of the former bishopric, and had twelve parishes subject to it, being included in the Peculiar of Dorchester, until the suppression of peculiars. The first abbot appears to have been Alured, whose name occurs in 1146 and again in 1163; the last was John Mershe, who was elected in 1533, and in the following year subscribed to the king's supremacy, with five of his canons, and was given a pension of £22 a year. The revenues of the abbey were valued at the time of its suppression at about £220. Henry VIII reserved the greater part of the property of the house for a college, erected by him in honour of the Holy Trinity, for a dean and prebendaries; but this was dissolved in the first year of his successor. No register or cartulary of Dorchester Abbey is now known to exist, and only a single charter, confirming the donation of a church by King John, is given by Dugdale. Edmund Ashefeld was the first impropriator of the abbey site and precincts, which afterwards passed through various hands. The stately church of Dorchester Abbey, as it stands today, was built entirely by the Augustinian Canons, although there are traces on the north side of Saxon masonry, probably part of the ancient cathedral. The whole length of the church is 230 feet, its width seventy, and its height fifty-five feet. The north transept with its doorway is of the Norman period; the north side of the nave and chancel arch, early English, the south side of nave, south aisle, and choir, Decorated; the south porch, late Perpendicular. The extraordinarily rich sanctuary, with its highly decorated windows (including the famous northern one known as the "Jesse" window) and beautifully carved sedilia and piscina, dates from 1330. One of the very few existing leaden fonts in England is in this church.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Pierre Doré

(AURATUS)

Controversialist, b. at Orleans about 1500; d. at Paris, 19 May, 1559. He entered the Dominican Order in 1514 and won his degrees at Paris, in 1532, after a brilliant examination. Though elected to the office of prior at Blois in 1545, Doré continued to preach throughout the provinces. At Chalons the bishop, who had been captivated by his zeal and eloquence, entrusted him with the reform of the Carthusian monastery of Val des Choux (Vallis Caulium). For the same reasons, Claude de Lorraine, Duke of Guise, and his consort, Antoinette de Bourbon, chose him as confessor. He wrote thirty-five ascetico-theological works, which some think are only redactions of his sermons. Chief among these is "Les voies du Paradis enseignees par notre Sauveur Jesus-Christ en son evangile", which appeared twice at Lyons in 1538 (Paris, 1540; Lyons, 1586; Rome, 1610). In his "Paradoxa ad profligandas haereses ex divi Pauli epistolis selecta", he refuted the Huguenots, but soon turned to writing ascetical commentaries on the Psalms. When Henry II entered Paris in 1548, Doré wrote a Latin ode which won for him the post of court preacher and royal confessor. His famous defence of the Eucharist appeared in 1549, and two years later he published two other apologies on the same subject and another on the Mass. At the same time he prepared his defence of the Faith in three volumes, as also another refutation of the Calvinists. He closed his literary career with two works on Justification.

Though Doré used the vernacular very loosely, and indulged in far-fetched descriptions, which Rabelais (Pantagruel, ch. xxii) ridicules, his works have always been held in high esteem for originality and unassailable orthodoxy. His literal translations of the Eucharistic hymns of St. Thomas Aquinas, his Latin poems, and the Office for a Feast of St. Joseph, which he composed at the command of Paul III, have always been greatly admired.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Andrea Doria

Genoese admiral and statesman, b. at Oneglia, Italy, 1468; d. at Genoa, 1560. His family belonged to the magnae quatuor prosapiae who disputed among themselves for the supremacy in Genoa, but the Adorni and Fregosi of the opposing faction excluded the Doria from power. At first Genoa sought union with France; then, in 1464, Louis XI ceded it to the Duke of Milan. Doria's early years were trying ones; his father died young, and his mother placed him under the guardianship of a relation who was captain of the guard to Pope Innocent VIII. Thus began the active, adventurous career that was destined to make Andrea Doria one of the most important personages of Europe in the sixteenth century.

Like many Italians of his day, Doria was at first a condottiere. He commenced by serving (1487-1492) in the guards of Innocent VIII, then in the Neapolitan army of Alfonso of Aragon, to whom he alone remained faithful after the conquest of Naples by Charles VIII (1495). He next joined the Order of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem and made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land; after this he entered the service of Jean de La Rovère, leader of the French troops of the Kingdom of Naples, and had as his opponent Gonsalvo de Cordova, the most renowned general of the time. In 1503 Doria was able to re-enter Genoa, where order had been restored by Louis XII, and set out to subdue the Corsicans, then in revolt. On his return the Genoese entrusted him with the reorganization of their fleet. Doria now abandoned land service for that of the sea and, arming eight galleys at his own expense, constituted himself an independent naval power. During the years 1507 to 1519 he traversed the Western Mediterranean with his fleet, and, having overpowered the Barbary Corsairs and captured several of their chiefs, among them the famous Cadolin, returned to Genoa laden with booty.

On account of the civil discords in Genoa, Doria withdrew with twelve corsair galleys that he had seized, the crews of which would now acknowledge no other chief, and entered the service of Francis I, who appointed him "governor-general of the galleys of France". In 1524 he raised the blockade of Marseilles, then besieged by Charles V, and, after the battle of Pavia, gathered together the remnants of the French army (1525). He then became commander of the galleys of Clement VII; in 1527 re-entered the service of France and compelled Genoa to acknowledge the authority of Francis I. But in 1528 he quarrelled with the King of France, who did not pay him faithfully. Recalling Filippo Doria, his nephew, who was besieging Naples with his uncle's fleet, Andrea agreed to enter the service of Charles V, and began to re-establish order in Genoa, where he was received with enthusiasm (12 September, 1528). After breaking up the ancient noble clans, he set up a new social division and an aristocratic constitution which continued in force, with but few modifications until 1798. Absolute head of the naval forces of the house of Austria, he directed the maritime struggle against the Turks and the Barbary pirates; in 1532, just when Solyman threatened Hungary, Doria landed on the coast of Greece, took Coron and Patras, and even meditated an attack on Constantinople. In 1535 he co-operated in the siege of Tunis; in 1536 as head of the united squadron, made up of the ships of the pope, Venice, and the Knights of Malta, he surprised the famous Barbarossa in the Gulf of Arta and then allowed him to escape. Loaded with honours by Charles V, Doria retired to the territory of Genoa and lived in the beautiful palace he had built at Fassolo, where he dispensed royal hospitality to Charles V and Philip II. He was greatly revered by his fellow-citizens, yet, in 1547, he suppressed with much cruelty the conspiracy formed by some discontented nobles, the Fieschi and the Cibò. Doria's tomb, decorated by Montorsoli, is in the church of San Matteo, but his colossal statue, which was erected in 1540, was overthrown and broken in 1797.

LOUIS BREHIER

Matthias Döring

Historian and theologian, b. between 1390 and 1400, at Kyritz, in Brandenburg; d. there 24 July, 1469. He joined the Friars Minor in his native place, studied at Oxford, was graduated (1424) at Erfurt as doctor of theology, and for some years taught theology and Biblical exegesis. In 1427 he was elected provincial of his order for Saxony. In the disputes between the Conventuals and those of the Observance he took an active part. In 1443 at Berne the Conventuals elected him minister general. This position he held for six years, receiving approbation from the assembly of prelates still posing as the General Council of Basle. In this council he had been prominent since 1432 as an over-zealous reformer and an adherent of the supremacy of a general council over the pope. He was sent by it to Denmark, to win over the king and the people, and assisted in the deposition (1439) of Eugene IV and the election of the antipope, Felix V. Excommunicated by the Archbishop of Magdeburg he appealed to Rome. In 1461 he resigned his office and spent the last years of his life in literary work at the convent of Kyritz.

Döring is said to be the author of the "Confutation primatus Papae", written (1443) anonymously and without title. Name and title were added when the article was edited in 1550 by Matthias Flacius Illyricus. It is in part an extract from the "Defensor pacis" of Marsilius of Padua (printed in Goldast, Monarchia, I, 557 sqq.). Other works attributed to Döring are "Defensorium postillae Nicolai Lyrani", against the Spanish bishop, Paul of Burgos, since 1481 frequently printed with the "Postillae"; "Liber perplexorum Ecclesiae" (lost); continuation (1420 to 1464) of the Chronicle of Dietrich Engelhus. He also wrote on the so-called "Donation of Constantine" and (1444) on the relics of the Precious Blood of Wilsnack.

FRANCIS MERSHMAN

Thomas Dorman

Theologian, b. at Berkhampstead, Hertfordshire, England, date uncertain; d. at Tournai, 1572 or 1577. He received his early education through his uncle, Thomas Dorman of Agmondesham, now Amersham, Buckinghamshire. His master at Berkhampstead was Richard Reeve, a noted Protestant schoolmaster. He was also known to Thomas Harding, the Catholic scholar, then professor of Hebrew at Oxford, who took great interest in the boy and sent him to Winchester school in 1547. From Winchester Dorman went to New College at Oxford, of which Harding was a fellow, and here he was elected a probationer fellow. During the Catholic revival under Mary he was appointed fellow of All Souls College (1554) and on 9 July, 1558, took the degree B.C.L. A year or two after Elizabeth's accession, finding that he could not live in England without conforming to the new religion, he sacrificed his fellowship and his patrimony and went to Antwerp, where he met Harding who was also an exile for the Faith. Harding persuaded him to resume his studies, and Dorman accordingly went to Louvain and devoted himself to the study of theology. In 1565 he became B.D. in the University of Douai and finally received the doctorate there. During this period he engaged in controversy with the Anglican divines, Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, and Nowell, Dean of St. Paul's. In 1569, at the invitation of Dr. Allen, he joined the band of scholars at the newly founded English College at Douai which he assisted both by his services and his private means. He died at Tournai where he had been given an important benefice. His works are: "A proufe of certeyne articles in Religion denied by M. Juel" (Antwerp, 1564); "A Disproufe of M. Nowelle's Reproufe" (Antwerp, 1565); "A Request to Mr. Jewel that he keep his promise made by solemn Protestation in his late Sermon at Paul's Cross" (London, 1567; Louvain, 1567).

EDWIN BURTON

Bernard Dornin

First publisher in the United States of distinctively Catholic books, b. in Ireland, 1761; d. in Ohio, 1836. He was forced to leave his native land, in 1803, because of political troubles and, arriving in New York soon after, began a book-selling and publishing concern. He got out a New Testament, printed for him in Brooklyn, in 1805, and an edition of Pastorini's "History of the Church", in 1807. He moved to Baltimore, in 1809, and from there to Philadelphia in 1817. During many years he was the leading Catholic publisher of the country, and as such enjoyed the friendship of Archbishop Carroll and of other members of the hierarchy, who esteemed him as a vigorous and gifted writer and editor. In the early thirties he disposed of his business in Philadelphia, where he had published a number of Catholic books, and went to Ohio to reside near his daughter.

Thomas Aloysius Dornin

Son of Bernard, b. in Ireland, 1800; d. at Savannah, Georgia, U.S.A., 22 April, 1874. He entered the United States Navy, 2 May, 1815, as a midshipman, from Maryland. Commissioned a lieutenant in 1825, he made a five-years' cruise around the world. In 1841 he was promoted commander and helped to successfully carry out an expedition to prevent the invasion of Mexican territory by the filibusterer William Walker. After being commissioned captain, in 1855, he engaged in destroying the slave-trade. During the Civil War he attained the rank of commodore on the retired list, 16 July, 1862, and at its close was put in charge of the fifth lighthouse district.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

St. Dorothea

(1) Virgin and martyr, suffered during the persecution of Diocletian, 6 February, 311, at Caesarea in Cappadocia. She was brought before the prefect Sapricius, tried, tortured, and sentenced to death. On her way to the place of execution the pagan lawyer Theophilus said to her in mockery: "Bride of Christ, send me some fruits from your bridegroom's garden." Before she was executed, she sent him, by a six-year-old boy, her headdress which was found to be filled with a heavenly fragrance of roses and fruits. Theophilus at once confessed himself a Christian, was put on the rack, and suffered death. This is the oldest version of the legend, which was later variously enlarged. Dorothea is represented with an angel and a wreath of flowers. She is regarded as the patroness of gardeners. On her feast trees are blessed in some places. In the West she has been venerated since the seventh century.

(2) ST. DOROTHEA OF MONTAU, recluse, born at Montau, 6 February, 1347, d. at Marienwerder, 25 June, 1394. At the age of seventeen she married the sword-cutler Albrecht of Danzig, a hot-tempered man, whose nature underwent a change through her humility and gentleness. Both made grequent pilgrimages to Cologne, Aachen, and Einsiedeln, and they intended (1390) to visit Rome also; but Albrecht was prevented by illness and remained at home where he died, while Dorothea journeyed to Rome alone. Of their nine children all died, except one daughter who joined the Benedictines. In the summer of 1391 Dorothea moved to Marienwerder, and on 2 May, 1393, with the permission of the chapter and of the Teutonic Order, established a hermitage near the cathedral. She led a very austere life. Numerous visitors sought her advice and consolation, and she had wonderful visions and revelations. Her confessor, the deacon John of Marienwerder, a learned theologian, wrote down her communications and composed a Latin biography in seven books, "Septililium", besides a German life in four books. She was never canonized, but the people honoured her as the guardian of the country of the Teutonic Knights and Patroness of Prussia." Her feast is celebrated on 25 June, in some places on 30 October. The church at Marienwerder is now in the hands of the Lutherans; her relics cannot be found.

GABRIEL MEIER

Anne Hanson Dorsey

Novelist, born at Georgetown, District of Columbia, U.S.A., 1815; died at Washington, 26 December, 1896. She was the daughter of the Rev. William McKenney, a chaplain in the United States Navy, and Chloe Ann Lanigan McKenney. In 1837 she was married to Lorenzo Dorsey, and in 1840 became a convert to the Catholic Faith. From this period, for more than half a century, she devoted her exceptional talent to Catholic fiction. She was a pioneer of light Catholic literature in the United States and a leading writer for the young. While deeply religious in tone, her stories are full of living interest and a knowledge of the world gained by clear insight and wide experience. Mrs. Dorsey's only son was killed while serving in the Union Army during the Civil War. She left three daughters. Pope Leo XIII twice sent her his benediction, and the University of Notre Dame conferred upon her the Lætare medal. Her chief works are: "The Student of Blenheim Forest"; "Flowers of Love of Memory"; "Guy, the Leper"; "Tears of the Diadem"; "Tale of the White and Red Roses"; "Woodreve Manor"; "Conscience, or the Trials of May Brooke"; "Oriental Pearl"; Cocaina, the Rose of the Algonquins"; "The Flemings"; "Nora Brady's Vow"; "Mona, the Vestal"; "The Old Gray Rosary"; "Tangled Paths"; "The Old House at Glenarra"; "Adrift"; "Ada's Trust"; "Beth's Promise"; "The Heiress of Carrigmona"; "Warp and Woof"; "The Palms".

MARY T. WAGGAMAN

Dorylaeum

A titular see of Phrygia Salutaris, in Asia Minor. This city already existed under the kings of Phrygia and is mentioned by most of the ancient geographers. It was situated at Karadja Hissar, six miles south-west of the modern Eski Shehir. About the end of the fourth century B.C. it was removed to Shehir Euyuk, at the ruins north of the same Eski Shehir; there it remained during the Byzantine period. Seven bishops are known from the fourth to the ninth century, the most famous being Eusebius, who denounced successively the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches (Lequien, Oriena christ., I, 837). The see is mentioned as late as the twelfth century among the suffragans of Synnada, but must have been suppressed soon after. Dorylaeum was taken and destroyed by the Seljuk Turks, probably in 1070. It was there (1 July, 1097) that the crusaders won their great victory over the Turks. The city was rebuilt in 1175 by Manuel Comnenus and fortified as well as possible. At this time John Cinnamus ("Histor.", VII, 2-3) and Nicetas Choniates ("De gestis Man. Comn.", VI, 1) write enthusiastically about it as one of the most beautiful cities of Asia Minor. The next year it fell again into the hands of the Turks; in 1240 it passed to Erthogroul, father of Othman, the founder of the Osmanli dynasty (his tomb is at Seughud near Eski Shehir). Meanwhile the city stretched away from the hill of Shehir Euyuk and developed along the Poursak (ancient Tembris or Thymbris), under the name of Eski Shehir. The modern town is situated at an altitude of 783 metres, on a vast and fertile plateau, about 400 kilometres from Constantinople. Eski Shehir is the chief town of a caza in the vilayet of Brusa. The population is about 40,000: 2000 Greeks, 2000 Armenians, 200 Latins, a few Catholic Armenians, Protestants, and Jews, the rest being Mussulmans. Since 1891 the Assumptionists have conducted a mission with a school for boys, and the Oblate Sisters of the Assumption two schools for girls. There is also a Catholic Armenian parish. Eski Shehir has hot springs that are used for baths. Fish, especially gigantic silures, swarm in the Poursak. The meerschaum industry flourishes there; the chief known mine of this mineral is at Mikhalitch in the district of Eski Shehir.

S. VAILHÉ

Dositheans

Followers of Dositheus, a Samaritan who formed a Gnostic-Judaistic sect, previous to Simon Magus. Although the name of Dositheus is often coupled with that of Simon Magus as the first of all heretics, we possess but scant information concerning him. He is not mentioned in Justin or Irenæus, but first occurs in Pseudo-Tertullian's "Adv. Hær.", a Latin rendering of the lost "Syntagma" of Hippolytus (about a.d. 220). "I pass over in silence", says the author, "the heretics of Judaism, I mean Dositheus the Samaritan, who first dared to reject the Prophets, as not having spoken in the Holy Ghost. I pass over the Sadducees, who, springing from this root of error, dared in addition to this heresy to deny even the resurrection of the flesh" (ch. i). If, however, the Sadducees sprang from Dositheus, he must have begun to teach sometime previous to the Christian Era, and cannot properly be counted amongst heretics of Christianity. St. Jerome, who copied Pseudo-Tertullian, distinctly speaks of "those who before the coming of Christ undid the Law". An independent witness to the same fact is found in the Pseudo-Clementine "Recognitions", I, 54: "the author of this [Sadducee] opinion was first Dositheus and then Simon". On the other hand in "Recognitions", II, 8, we read that Dositheus founded a sect after the death of John the Baptist. Origen states that "Dositheus the Samaritan, after the time of Jesus, wished to persuade the Samaritans that he himself was the Messias prophesied by Moses" (Contra Celsum, VI, ii); and he classes him with John the Baptist, Theodas, and Judas of Galilee as people whom the Jews mistakenly held to be the Christ (Hom. xxv in Lucam; Contra Celsum, I, lvii). He informs us that the Disotheans gave out that they possessed some books of Dositheus and told some tales about him as being still alive in this world, and he further accuses Dositheus of having mutilated the Scriptures. It is not certain, however, whether Origen did not confound Dositheus the Pseudo-Messias with an Encratite sectary who lived somewhat later. This is suggested especially by a passage in Origen's "De Principiis", IV, vii, where he ascribes to Dositheus the Samaritan and others some absurdly strict observance of the Sabbath. This is also, probably, the reason why Dositheus is placed by Hegesippus after Simon Magus instead of before. In Talmudic literature (Pirke d. R. Eliezer, xxxviii, and Tanhuma Vayyusheb, ii) there occurs a Samaritan of the Syro­Macedonian period named dwshay, and it has been plausibly argued that the patristic references which connect Dositheus with the Sadducees arise from a confusion of Dositheus the Samaritan Pseudo-Messias with this early Jewish heretic. If this be true, there would have been three persons of this name, one at the time of Alexander the Great, another at the time of Christ, and a third, a generation later. But the mention of a fourth, at the time of Salmanasar (about 700 b.c.) makes one cautious of Talmudic information. It is certain, however, that a Jewish sect, mentioned by several Arabic and other historians under the name of Dusitamya or Dostân, continued to exist till the tenth century, and that they were considered similar to the Kutîm, or Samaritans. But they seem never to have possessed any importance in the Christian world, in which from the earliest times there existed but a vague reminiscence of their name, though they continue to be mentioned in descriptions and lists of heresies, such as the "Hæreses" of Epiphanius and similar collections.

      Kraus, Dosithée et les Dosithéens in Revue des Etudes Juives (Paris, 1901), 27-42; BÜchler, Les Dosithéens dans le Midrash, ibid., (1901), 220-31 and (1902), 50-71; Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums (Leipzig, 1884), 155-1l61.

J.P. Arendzen

Pierre-Herman Dosquet

Fourth Bishop of Quebec, b. at Liège, Flanders, 1691; d. at Paris, 1777. He studied at the Seminary of Saint-Sulpice, Paris, and entered that congregation. After two years in Canada (1721-23) he was appointed superior of the Seminary of Lisieux in France, and helped to preserve that institution from Jansenism. While acting in Rome as procurator-general for the Oriental Missions of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, he was made vicar Apostolic of a portion of India and consecrated titular Bishop of Samos by Benedict XIII (1725). He remained in Rome until appointed coadjutor to Bishop Mornay of Quebec (1729). Bishop Dosquet had to solve many difficulties that had arisen towards the close of the life of Bishop St. Vallier. He legislated wisely in behalf of the religious communities of women and was zealous for the suppression of the liquor traffic. In 1733, after Bishop Mornay's resignation, he succeeded to the See of Quebec, where he promoted education, primary and classical. A patron and benefactor of the Congregation of the Holy Ghost, he confided almost exclusively to its missionaries Acadia, the islands of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, and probably Labrador. He rewarded that congregation by generous endowments, including Sarcelle, a property near Paris, which until the Revolution yielded an annual revenue of 3000 livres. In 1735 ill health forced him to leave Quebec, but his resignation was accepted only in 1739. Thenceforth he resided chiefly in Rome, attending to the interests of his former diocese, especially after the English conquest.

LIONEL LINDSAY

Giovanni Dossi

Actually named GIOVANNI DI NICOLO DI LUTERO, but also called Dosso Dossi.

An Italian painter, b. about 1479; d. at Ferrara in 1542. Dossi belonged to the School of Ferrara and was a pupil of Lorenzo Costa in Mantua. He is believed to have derived his name from the village of Dosso, in which it has been stated he was born. In conjunction with his brother Battista (1480-1548) Dossi visited Rome and Venice and passed eleven years in these places studying especially the works of Giorgione and Titian, but forming his own style, which was distinguished by romantic treatment, imaginative power, rich, brilliant, and often novel colouring. He and his brother were frequently employed by Alfonso I, Duke of Ferrara, and by his successor, Ercole II. His greatest work is the altar-piece in the Ferrara Gallery. He also painted the cartoons for the tapestry in the cathedral of that city, for those in the church of San Francesco, and in the ducal palace at Modena. Many of his frescoes still remain in the ducal palace at Ferrara and his paintings can be studied in the cathedral and churches of Modena, in the Louvre, and in the galleries of Dresden, Berlin, Milan, and Vienna. He painted a portrait of Ariosto and the poet enrolled his name, in conjunction with those of Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Titian, in the poem of "Orlando Furioso", but the portrait cannot now be identified, although many other portraits by Dossi are still in existence. The landscape backgrounds of his pictures are marked by beauty of colouring and fine imaginative quality. On his return from Venice he appears to have settled down in Ferrara. His work has a close kinship with that of the Venetian School.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Douai

(Town and University of Douai)

(Douay, Doway)

The town of Douai, in the department of Nord, France, is on the River Scarpe, some twenty miles south of Lille. It contains about 30,000 inhabitants and was formerly the seat of a university. It was strongly fortified, and the old ramparts have only been removed in recent years. The town flourished in the Middle Ages, and the church of Notre-Dame dates from the twelfth century.

To English Catholics, the name Douai will always be bound up with the college founded by Cardinal Allen during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, where the majority of the clergy were educated in penal times, and to which the preservation of the Catholic religion in England was largely due. Several other British establishments were founded there -- colleges for the Scots and the Irish, and Benedictine and Franciscan monasteries -- and Douai became the chief centre for those who were exiled for the Faith. The University of Douai may be said to date from 31 July, 1559, when Philip II of Spain (in whose dominions it was then situated) obtained a Bull from Pope Paul IV, authorizing its establishment the avowed object being the preservation of the purity of the Catholic Faith from the errors of the Reformation. Paul IV died before he had promulgated the Bull, which was, however, confirmed by his successor, Pius IV, 6 January, 1560. The letters patent of Philip II, dated 19 January, 1561, authorized the establishment of a university with five faculties; theology, canon law, civil law, medicine, and arts. The formal inauguration took place 5 October, 1562, when there was a public procession of the Blessed Sacrament, and a sermon was preached in the market-place by the Bishop of Arras.

There were already a considerable number of English Catholics living at Douai, and their influence made itself felt in the new university. In its early years, several of the chief posts were held by Englishmen, mostly from Oxford. The first chancellor of the university was Dr. Richard Smith, formerly Fellow of Merton and regius professor of divinity at Oxford; the regius professor of canon law at Douai for many years was Dr. Owen Lewis, Fellow of New College, who had held the corresponding post at Oxford; the first principal of Marchiennes College was Richard White, formerly Fellow of New College; while Allen himself, after taking his licentiate at Douai in 1560, became regius professor of divinity. It is reasonable to suppose that many of the traditions of Catholic Oxford were perpetuated at Douai. The university was, however, far from being even predominantly English; it was founded on the model of that of Louvain, from which seat of learning the majority of the first professors were drawn. The two features already mentioned -- that the university wa founded during the progres of the Reformation, to combat the errors of Protestantism, and that it was to a considerable extent under English influences -- explain the fact that William Allen, when seeking a home for a projected English college abroad, turned his eyes towards Douai. The project arose from a conversation which he had with Dr. Vendeville, then regius professor of canon law in the University of Douai, and afterwards Bishop of Tournai, whom he accompanied on a pilgrimage to Rome in the autumn of 1567; and the foundation took definite shape when Allen made a beginning in a hired house on Michaelmas Day, 1568. His object was to gather some of the numerous body of English Catholics who, having been forced to leave England, were scattered in different countries on the Continent, and to give them facilities for continuing their studies, so that when the time came for the re-establishment of Catholicism, which Allen was always confident could not be far distant, there might be a body of learned clergy ready to return to their country. This was of course a very different thing from sending missionaries over in defiance of the law while England still remained in the hands of the Protestants. This latter plan was an afterthought and a gradual growth from the circumstances in which the college found itself, though eventually it became its chief work.

Allen's personality and influence soon attracted a numerous band of scholars, and a few years after the foundation of the college the students numbered more than one hundred and fifty. A steady stream of controversial works issued form Douai, some by Allen himself, others by such men as Thomas Stapleton, Richard Bristowe, and others almost equally well known. The preparation of the Douay Bible was among their chief undertakings. It is estimated that before the end of the sixteenth century more than three hundred priests had been sent on the English mission, nearly a third of whom suffered martyrdom; and almost as many had been banished. By the end of the persecution the college counted more than one hundred and sixty martyrs. Allen had at first no regular source of income, but depended on the generosity of a few friends, and especially upon the neighbouring monasteries of Saint-Vaast at Arras, Anchin, and Marchiennes, which, at the suggestion of Dr. Vendeville, had from time to time subscribed towards the work. Many private donations were also received from England. After a few years, seeing the extreme need of the college and the importance of the work it was doing, Allen applied to Pope Gregory XIII, who in 1565 granted a regular pension of one hundred gold crowns a month, which continued to be paid down to the time of the French Revolution. Allen himself gave his whole salary as regius professor of divinity. The work of the college was not allowed to proceed without opposition, which at one time became so strong that Allen's life was in danger, and in 1578 the English were all expelled from Douai. The college was established temporarily at Reims; but possession was retained of the house at Douai, and in 1593 it was found possible to return there. By this time Allen had been called to reside in Rome, where he died 16 Oct., 1594. Under his successor, Dr. Richard Barrett, the work was extended to include a preparatory course in humanities, so that it became a school as well as a college. In 1603 under Dr. Worthington, the third president, a regular college was built, opposite the old parish church of St-Jacques, in the Rue des Morts, so called on account of the adjoining cemetery. The town at this time formed a single parish. In the eighteenth century it was divided into four parishes, and the present church of St-Jacques dates from that time.

The English College was the first to be opened in connexion with the university. The Collège d'Anchin was opened a few months later, endowed by the Abbot of the neighbouring monastery of Anchin, and entrusted to the Jesuits. In 1570 the Abbot of Marchiennes founded a college for the study of law. The Abbot of Saint-Vast founded a college of that name. Later on, we find the College of St. Thomas Aquinas, belonging to the Dominicans, the Collège du Roi, and others. The remaining British establishments were all exclusively for ecclesiastics. The Irish College was originally a Spanish foundation. It was established before the end of the sixteenth century, and endowed with 5,000 florins a year by the King of Spain. The course of studies lasted six years and the students attended lectures at the university. The Scots' College has an unfortunate notoriety in consequence of the long dispute between the Jesuits and the secular clergy which centred round it in later times. It was established in 1594, not as a new foundation, but as the continuation of a secular college at Pont- à-Mousson in Lorraine, which, owing to the unhealthfulness of the site, had to seek a new home. In 1506, however, it moved again, and it was not till after several further migrations that it settled finally at Douai in 1612. The college was devoid of resources, and it was due to the zealous efforts of Father Parsons in Rome and Madrid, and of Father Creighton in France and Flanders, that numerous benefactions were given, and it was placed on a permanent footing. For this reason, the Jesuits afterwards claimed the property as their own, although it was admitted that in its early years secular clergy had been educated there. Appeals and counter-appeals were made, but the question was still unsettled when the Jesuits were expelled from France in 1764. The French Government, however, recognized the claims of the Scotch secular clergy and allowed them to continue the work of the college under a rector chosen from their own body. The Benedictine and Franciscan houses at Douai were near together and were both bound up in their history with the restoration of the respective orders in England. The Franciscan monastery was founded mainly through the instrumentality of Father John Gennings, the brother of the martyr. It was established in temporary quarters in 1618, the students for the time attending the Jesuit schools; but by 1621 they had built a monastery and provided for all necessary tuition within their own walls. The Benedictines began in 1605, in hired apartments belonging to the Collège d'Anchin, but a few years later, through the generosity of Abbot Caravel of the monastery of Saint-Vaast, they obtained land and and built a monastery, which was opened in 1611. The house acquired a high reputation for learning, and many of the professors of the university were at different times chosen from among its members.

Returning now to the English College, we come upon the unfortunate disputes between the seculars and regulars in the seventeenth century. Dr. Worthington, though himself a secular priest, was under the influence of Father Parsons, and for a long time the students attended the Jesuit schools and all the spiritual direction was in the hands of the society. A visitation of the college, however, laid bare many shortcomings in its administration and in the end Worthington was deposed. His successor, Dr. Kellison (1631-1641), succeeded in restoring the reputation of the college, while he gradually arranged for the necessary tuition to be given within its walls. In the latter half of the seventeenth and the early years of the eighteenth century, the English College went through a troubled time. During the presidency of Dr. Hyde (1646-1651), the University of Douai obtained certain controlling rights over the college, which claim, however, he successfully withstood. His successor, Dr. George Leyburn (1652- 1670), fell out with the "Old Chapter", in the absence of a bishop, governing the Church in England. He attacked one Mr. White (alias Blacklo), a prominent member of their body, and procured a condemnation of his writings by the University of Douai. In the end, however, he himself found it necessary to retire in favour of his nephew, Dr. John Leyburn, who was afterwards vicar Apostolic. Hardly was the dispute with the "Blackloists" (as they were called) finished, when a further storm of an even more serious nature arose, the centre being Dr. Hawarden who was professor of philosophy and then of theology at the English College for seventeen years. His reputation became so great that when a vacancy occurred in 1702 he was solicited by the bishop, the chief members of the university, and the magistrates of the town to accept the post of regius professor of divinity. His candidature, however, was opposed by a party headed by the vice-chancellor. The Jesuits also declared against him, accusing him, and through him the English College, of Jansenism. In the end, Dr. Hawarden retired from Douai and went on the mission in England; and a visitation of the college, made by order of the Holy See, resulted in completely clearing it of the imputation. In 1677, Douai was taken by Louis XIV, and since that date has been under French control, except for the short time that it was held by the English after the siege of the Duke of Marlborough in 1710; but it was retaken by the French the following year.

During the rest of the eighteenth century, there were no important political changes until the Revolution broke out. The hopes which the English Catholics had rested on the Stuart family had now vanished, and the only prospect open to them lay in their foreign centres of which Douai was the chief. To these centres they devoted the greater part of their energy. Under the presidency of Dr. Witham (1715-1738) who is considered a second founder, the English College at Douai was rebuilt on a substantial scale and rescued from overwhelming debt; it had lost nearly all its endowment in the notorious Mississippi scheme, or "South Sea Bubble". The Irish College was rebuilt about the middle of the century, and the English Benedictine monastery between 1776 and 1781. But all were destined to come to an end a few years after this, under the Reign of Terror.

As a town, Douai suffered less than many others at the beginning of the Revolution. The university kept up its Catholic character to the end, and it was one of the five typical Catholic universities to which Pitt appealed for an authoritative declaration as to the Catholic doctrine on the "deposing power" of the pope. During the Reign of Terror, however, it suffered the same fate as many similar establishments. When all the clergy of the town were called upon in 1791 to take the "Civic Oath", the members of the British establishments claimed exemption in virtue of their nationality. The plea was allowed for a time; but after the execution of Louis XVI, when war was declared between England and France, it was not to be expected that this immunity would continue. The superiors and students of most of the British establishments took flight and succeeded in reaching England. The members of the English College, with their president, Rev. John Daniel, remained in the hope of saving the college; but in October, 1793, they were taken to prison at Doullens in Picardy, together with six Anglo- Benedictine monks who had remained for a similar purpose. After undergoing many dangers and hardships, they were allowed to return to Douai in November, 1794, and a few months later, by the exertions of Dr. Stapleton, President of St. Omer (who with his students had likewise been imprisoned at Doullens), they were set at liberty and allowed to return to England. The English collegians never returned to Douai. The Penal Laws had recently been repealed, and they founded two colleges to continue the work of Douai -- Crook Hall (afterwards removed to Ushaw) in the North, and St. Edmund's, Old Hall, in the South. The Roman pension was divided equally between these two until the French occupied Rome in 1799, when it ceased to be paid. Both these colleges exist at the present day. After the Revolution, Bonaparte united all the British establishments in France under one administrator, Rev. Francis Walsh, an Irishman. On the restoration of the Bourbons, a large sum of money was paid to the English Government to indemnify those who had suffered by the Revolution; but none of this ever reached Catholic hands, for it was ruled that as the Catholic colleges were carried on in France for the sole reason that they were illegal in England, they must be considered French, not English, estqablishments. The buildings, however, were restored to their rightful owners, and most of them were sold. The Anglo-Benedictines alone retained their ancient monastery; and as the community of St. Gregory was then permanently established at Downside, they handed over their house at Douai to the community of St. Edmund, which had formerly been located in Paris. These Benedictines carried on a school at Douai until 1903, when in consequence of the Associations' Law passed by the Government they were forced to leave. They returned to England, and settled at Woolhampton, near Reading.

Dodd, Church History of England; Idem, ed. Tierney, R. C., Hist. of Eng. Col., Douay, ed. Dodd (1713); Butler, Reminiscences (1822); Knox, Douay Diaries (1878); Idem, Letters of Cardinal Allen (1882); J. Gillow, Haydock Papers (1888); H. Gillow, Chapels of Ushaw; Ward, History of St. Edmund's College (1893); Husenbeth, Eng. Colleges and Convents on the Continent (1849); Cameron, The Catholic Church in Scotland (Glasgow, 1869); Boyle, Irish College in Paris (1901); Burt, Downside (1902); Thaddeus, Franciscans in England (1898); Calendar of English Martyrs (1876); Daucoisne, Etablissements Britanniques à Douai (Douai, 1881); HandecŒur, Histoire du Collège Anglais, Douai (Reims, 1898); Tailliar, Chroniques de Douai (1875); Catholic Magazine (1831). Also many unpublished MSS. in the Westminster archives, and in those of the "Old Brotherhood" (formerly the "Old Chapter").

Bernard Ward.

Douay Bible

The original Douay Version, which is the foundation on which nearly all English Catholic versions are still based, owed its existence to the religious controversies of the sixteenth century. Many Protestant versions of the Scriptures had been issued and were used largely by the Reformers for polemical purposes. The renderings of some of the texts showed evident signs of controversial bias, and it became of the first importance for the English Catholics of the day to be furnished with a translation of their own, on the accuracy of which they could depend and to which they could appeal in the course of argument. The work of preparing such a version was undertaken by the members of the English College at Douai, in Flanders, founded by William Allen (afterwards cardinal) in 1568. The chief share of the translating was borne by Dr. Gregory Martin, formerly of St. John's College, Oxford. His text was revised by Thomas Worthington, Richard Bristowe, John Reynolds, and Allen himself -- all of them Oxford men. A series of notes was added, designed to answer the theological arguments of the Reformers; these were prepared by Allen, assisted by Bristowe and Worthington.

The object of the work was, of course not limited to controversial purposes; in the case of the New Testament, especially, it was meant for pious use among Catholics. The fact however, that the primary end was controversial explains the course adopted by the translators. In the first place they translated directly, not from the original Hebrew or Greek, but from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. This had been declared authoritative for Catholics by the Council of Trent; but it was also commonly admitted that the text was purer than in any manuscripts at that time extant in the original languages. Then, also, in the translation, many technical words were retained bodily, such as pasch, parasceve, azymes, etc. In some instances, also where it was found difficult or impossible to find a suitable English equivalent for a Latin word, the latter was retained in an anglicized form. Thus in Phil., ii, 8, we get "He exinanited himself", and in Heb., ix, 28, "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many". It was considered that an ordinary reader, finding the word unintelligible, would pause and inquire its meaning and that this was preferable to satisfying him with an inadequate rendering. In other cases latinisms seem to have crept in unawares, as in Luke, x, 1, "Our Lord designed also other seventy-two" or in Phil., ii, 10, "In the name of Jesus, every knee bow of the celestials, terrestrials and infernals". The proper names are usually (though not always) taken from the Vulgate; but the word Dominus is rendered throughout Our Lord. The general result was a version in cumbersome English, so full of latinisms as to be in places hardly readable, but withal scholarly and accurate.

In the year 1578, owing to political troubles, the college was temporarily transferred from Douai (which was then in the dominions of the King of Spain) to Reims, and during its sojourn there, in 1582, the New Testament was published, and became consequently known as the "Rheims Testament". It contained no episcopal imprimatur, but a recommendation was appended signed by four divines of the University of Reims. The Old Testament was delayed by want of means, until the whole Bible was eventually published in two quarto volumes, in 1609 and 1610, by which time the college had returned to Douai, and the recommendation was signed by three doctors of that university. Thus the New Testament appeared nearly thirty years before the Anglican "Authorized Version", and although not officially mentioned as one of the versions to be consulted, it is now commonly recognized to have had a large influence on the King James Version (see Preface to R. V., i, 2; also, Carleton, "Rheims and the English Bible"). The Reims Testament was reprinted twice at Antwerp -- in 1600 and 1621 -- and a fourth edition was issued at Rouen in 1633. Then it was allowed to rest for over a century, before a fifth edition appeared, with some slight changes, dated 1728, but without any place of publication stated. It is believed to have been printed in London and was edited by Dr. Challoner (afterwards bishop), and Father Blyth, a Carmelite. The Douay Bible was never after this printed abroad. A sixth edition of the Reims Testament was printed at Liverpool in 1788, and a seventh dated Dublin, 1803, which was the last Catholic edition. Several Protestant editions have appeared, the best known being a curious work by Rev. William Fulke, first published in 1589, with the Reims text and that of the Bishops' Bible in parallel columns. A Protestant edition of the Reims Testament was also brought out by Leavitt of New York, in 1834.

Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52. His object was to meet the practical want felt by the Catholics of his day of a Bible moderate in size and price, in readable English, and with notes more suitable to the time. He brought out three editions of the New Testament, in 1749, 1750, and 1752 respectively, and one of the Old Testament in 1750. The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they "almost amounted to a new translation". So also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, "To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published". In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages. The best known version published in England in modern times was perhaps Haydock's, which was first issued at Manchester in fortnightly parts in 1811-12. The Irish editions are mostly known by the names of the bishops who gave the imprimatur: as Dr. Carpenter's New Testament (1783); Dr. Troy's Bible (1791); Dr. Murray's (1825); and Dr. Denvir's (1836) -- the last two of which have often been reprinted, and were circulated largely in England and Ireland. Around the turn of the century, the issue of the sixpenny New Testament by Burns and Oates of London, by its large circulation, made the text adopted therein -- Challoner's of 1749 -- the standard one, especially as the same was adopted in Dr. Murray's and Dr. Denvir's Bibles. In America an independent revision of the Douay Version by Archbishop Kenrick (1849-59) was much used.

BERNARD WARD

Doubt

(Lat. dubium, Gr. aporí, Fr. doute, Ger. Zweifel).

A state in which the mind is suspended between two contradictory propositions and unable to assent to either of them. Any number of alternative propositions on the same subject may be in doubt at the same time; but, strictly speaking, the doubt is attached separately to each one, as between the proposition and its contradictory, i.e. each proposition may or may not be true. Doubt is opposed to certitude, or the adhesion of the mind to a proposition without misgiving as to its truth; and again to opinion, or a mental adhesion to a proposition together with such a misgiving. Doubt is either positive or negative. In the former case, the evidence for and against is so equally balanced as to render decision impossible; in the latter, the doubt arises from the absence of sufficient evidence on either side. It is thus possible that a doubt may be positive on the one side and negative on the other (positivo-negative or negativo-positive), i.e. in cases where evidence on one side only is attainable and does not, of itself, amount to absolute demonstration, as, for instance, in circumstantial evidence. Again, doubt may be either theoretical or practical. The former is concerned with abstract truth and error; the latter with questions of duty, or of the licitness of actions, or of mere expediency. A further distinction is made between doubt concerning the existence of a particular fact (dubium facti) and doubt in regard to a precept of law (dubium juris). Prudent doubts are distinguished from imprudent, according to the reasonableness or unresonableness of the considerations on which the doubt is based. It should be observed that doubt is a purely subjective condition; i.e. it belongs only to the mind which has to judge of facts, and has no application to the facts themselves. A proposition or theory which is commonly called doubtful is, therefore, one as to which sufficient evidence to determine assent is not forthcoming; in itself it must be either true or false. Theories which have at one time been regarded as doubtful for want of sufficient evidence, frequently become certainly true or false by reason of the discovery of fresh evidence.

As certitude may be produced either by reason (which deals with evidence) or by faith (which rests on authority), it follows that theoretical doubt may be in like manner concerned with the subject-matter of either reason or faith, that is to say, with philosophy or with religion. Practical doubt is concerned with conduct; and since conduct must be guided by principles afforded by reason or by faith, or by both conjointly, doubt concerning it regards the application of principles already accepted under one or other of the foregoing heads. The resolution of doubt of this kind is the province of moral theology, in regard to questions of right and wrong and in regard to those of mere practical expediency, recourse must be had to the scientific or other principles which properly belong to the subject-matter of the doubt. Thus, for example, doubt as to the actual occurrence of an historical event can only be resolved by consideration of the evidence; doubt as to the doctrine of the sacraments, by ascertaining what is of faith on the subject; doubt as to the morality of a commercial transaction, by the application of the authoritative decisions of moral theology; while the question of the wisdom or the reverse of the transaction in regard to profit and loss must be determined by comercial knowledge and experience. The legitimacy, or the reverse, of doubt in regard to matters of fact is made evident by the forms of logic (induction and deduction), which, whatever may be the extent of their function as a means of acquiring knowledge, are indispensably necessary as a test of the correctness of conclusions or hypotheses already formed.

DOUBT IN PHILOSOPHY

The validity of human perception and reasoning in general as guides to objective truth has been frequently called in question. The doubt thus raised has been sometimes of the character called methodic, fictitious, or provisional, and sometimes real, or sceptical, as embodying the conclusion that objective truth cannot be known. Doubt of the former kind is the necessary preliminary to all inquiry, and in this sense philosophy is said by Aristotle (Metaph., III, i) to be "the art of doubting well". Sir W. Hamilton points out (Lect. on Metaphysics, v) that doubt, as a preliminary to philosophical inquiry is the only means by which the necessary removal of prejudice may be effected; as the Baconian method insisted on the primary necessity of putting aside the "idols", or prejudices, by which men's minds are naturally influenced. Thus the Scholastic proof of a proposition or thesis begins by the statement of "doubts", or contrary arguments; after which the evidence for the thesis is given, and finally the doubts are resolved. This, it need hardly be said, is the method pursued in the "Summa" of Saint Thomas Aquinas and still in use in the formal disputations of theological students. An instance of this kind of doubt is the Sic et Non (Yes and No) of Abelard, which consists of a long series of propositions on theological, Scriptural, and philosophical subjects, with a counter-proposition attached to each. The solution of the doubts in the sense of the orthodox thesis, which was clearly intended to follow, was never written; or if so, has not been preserved. (See Victor Cousin's "Fragments Philosophiques".) The philosophical system of Descartes begins with a universal methodic doubt; the famous cogito, ergo sum, on which the whole system is based, is the solution of the philosopher's fundamental doubt of his own existence. This solution had been anticipated by St. Augustine; who took the subjective certainty of one's own existence as the ground of all certainty, e.g.,

Tu, qui vis te nosse, scis esse te? Scio. Unde scis? Nescio. Cogitare te scis? Scio. (Sol., II, i);

Utrum aëris sit vis vivendi, an ignis, dubitaverunt homines; vivere se tamen et meminisse et intelligere et velle et cogitare et scire et judicare quis dubitet? Quandoquidem etiam si dubitet vivit; si dubitat, dubitare se intelligit, etc. (De Trin., X, xiv).

In general it may be said that doubt, either expressed or implied, is involved in all intellectual research.

Among the systems in which doubt as to the trustworthiness of human faculties is not merely provisionally assumed, but is genuine and final, those which find in a supernatural revelation the guide to truth which natural reason fails to provide must be distinguished from those which hold doubt to be the final conclusion of all inquiry into truth. The former depreciate reason in the interests of faith; the latter take reason as the only possible guide, but find no ground for confidence in it. To the former class belongs Nicholas of Cusa (1440), who was the author of two sceptical treatises on human knowledge; certainty is to be found, according to his view, only through the mystical knowledge of God. The scepticism of Montaigne made a reservation (whether sincerely or not is uncertain) in favour of revealed truth; and the same principle was advocated by Charron, Sanchez, and Le Vayer. Hume, in his sceptical essays on miracles and immortality, also attributed a final authority to revelation; but with obvious insincerity. The sceptical views of Hobbes, combined with his peculiar theory of government, made all conviction, including that of religious truth, dependent on the civil authority. Glanvill's "The Vanity of Dogmatizing", or "Scepsis Scientifica", grounded a serious defense of revealed religion on the uncertainty of natural knowledge. Balfour's "Defense of Philosophic Doubt", based on the indemonstrability of ultimate truths, is an attempt in the same direction. (See FIDEISM.)

In the second class are to be reckoned the various systems of genuine skepticism. This appeared in Greek philosophy at a very early date. Heraclitus held the senses to be untrustworthy (kakoí mártures) and misleading, though he also conceived a supersensuous knowledge of the universal reason, immanent in the cosmos, to be attainable. Zeno of Elea defended the doctrine of the unity and permanence of being by propounding a series of "hypotheses", each of which resulted in a contradiction, and by means of them sought to demonstrate the unreality of the manifold and changing. The subjective principle of the Sophists (Protagoras, Gorgias, and others of less note) that "man is the measure of all things" implies doubt, or skepticism, as to all objective reality. Knowledge is resolved by Protagoras into mere variable opinion; and Gorgias asserts that nothing really exists, that if anything existed, it could not be known, and that if such knowledge were possible it would be incommunicable. The Pyrrhonists, or Sceptics, held everything in doubt, even the fact of doubting. The Middle Academics, whose chief representatives were Arcesilaus and Carneades, while doubting all knowledge, held, nevertheless, that probability could be recognized in varying degrees. The "Encyclopedia" of Diderot and d'Alembert comments on the odd self-contradiction of Montaigne, who claimed a higher degree of probability for the Pyrrhonist than for the Academic opinion. Sextus Empiricus advanced the theory, often since maintained, that the syllogism is really a petitio principii, and that demonstration is therefore impossible. Bayle, in his celebrated "Dictionary", subjected the philosophy of his time to severe destructive criticism, but was confessedly unable to supply its deficiencies. Hume's position was purely negative for him, neither the existence of the external world nor that of the mind by which it is known was capable of demonstration; and the conclusion of Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", that the "thing in itself" (Ding an sich) is unknowable though certainly existing, is evidently sceptical (though the author himself rejected the title), since it embodies a purely negative doubt as to the nature of "transcendent" reality. Kant's argument for the existence of God, as rationally indemonstrable, but postulated by the practical reason, necessarily results in a very limited conception of the Divine nature. Lamennais made general consent, or the common sense of mankind, the only ground of certitude; the individual reason he held to be incapable of attaining it. "Nothing is so evident to us today that we can be sure we shall not find it either doubtful or erroneous to-morrow" (Essai sur l'indifférence, II, xiii).

It may be observed that theories which deny the validity of simple experience as a guide to truth are really instances of doubt, because, though they assert dogmatically the inadequacy of widely accepted evidence, they are nevertheless in that state of suspense by which doubt is properly characterized in regard to the reality commonly held to be made known by experience. Thus the mental attitude which received from Professor Huxley the name of Agnosticism is a strictly doubtful one towards all that lies beyond sense-experience. The doubt is purely negative in this view; whatever is not cognizable by the aid of the senses is held to be unknowable; God may exist, or He may not, but we can neither affirm His existence nor deny it. Again, the system or method known as Pragmatism regards all reality as doubtful; truth is the correspondence of ideas with one another, and cannot be regarded as anything final, but must perpetually change with the progress of human thought; knowledge must be taken at its "face value" from moment to moment, as a practical guide to well-being, and must not be regarded as having any necessary correspondence with definite and permanent reality.

DOUBT IN REGARD TO RELIGION

In regard to relgion, doubt has at different times assumed a variety of forms. It is perhaps uncertain how far the ancient mythologies received or even demanded exact belief; it is at any rate certain that they were, as a rule, not considered worthy of serious attention by the philosophers of any school. The atheism which formed part of the charge on which Socrates was condemned was an offense against the State rather than against religion in itself (see Lecky, Hist. of European Morals, ii). The faith demanded by the Christian Revelation stands on a different footing from the belief claimed by any other religion. Since it rests on divine authority, it implies an obligation to believe on the part of all to whom it is proposed; and faith being an act of the will as well as of the intellect, its refusal involves not merely intellectual error, but also some degree of moral perversity. It follows that doubt in regard to the Christian religion is equivalent to its total rejection, the ground of its acceptance being necessarily in every case the authority on which it is proposed, and not, as with philosophical or scientific doctrines, its intrinsic demonstrability in detail. Thus, whereas a philosophical or scientific opinion may be held provisionally and subject to an unresolved doubt, no such position can be held towards the doctrines of Christianity; their authority must be either accepted or rejected. The unconditional, interior assent which the Church demands to the Divine authority of revelation is incompatible with any doubt as to its validity. Gregory XVI, by the Brief "Dum acerbissimas", 26 Sept., 1835, condemned the teaching of Hermes that all theological inquiry should be based on positive doubt (Denzinger, 10th ed., no. 1619); and the Vatican Council declared (Sess. II, ch. sxxi):

"revelata vera esse credimus, non propter intrinsecam rerum veritatem naturali rationis lumine perspectam, sed propter auctoritatem ipsius Dei revelantis, qui nec falli nec fallere potest", i.e. we believe the things that are revealed to be true, not because of an intrinsic truth which reason perceives, but because of the authority of God Who is the Author of Revelation, and Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Heresies have, however, generally had the character rather of dogmatic assertion than of mere doubt, though they arose from a more or less prevalent state of doubt as to doctrines imperfectly understood or not yet authoritatively defined. The devotion to classical studies which followed upon the fall of Constantinople in 1463 and the dispersion of its literary treasures gave rise to the humanism, or literary revival, of the Renaissance, and in many cases resulted in a skeptical attitude towards religion. This skepticism, however, was by no means universal among the Humanists, and was due rather to lack of interest in theological as compared with literary and philosophical, study, than to any reasoned criticism of religious doctrine. (See Pastor, "History of the Popes", chapters on the Renaissance.) It helped to prepare the way however, for the Reformation which, beginning with a revolt against ecclesiastical authority, called all the doctrines of Christianity in question, rejecting those which failed to gain the approval of the different leaders of the movement. Thus among Protestants in general there is great variety of opinion on religious doctrines, those which are firmly held by some being considered doubtful by others, and by others again, rejected as false. Anglicanism, especially, leaves open many of the tenets which the Catholic Church holds as of faith, and thus endeavours to comprehend within its boundaries persons who differ widely from one another on important subjects. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, pronounces authoritatively as to the truth or falsehood of opinions, by means of general councils, professions of faith, infallible decisions of the supreme pontiff, and the ordinary teaching of her Doctors. As St. Avitus, in the sixth century, declared, "it is the law of the councils that if any doubt have arisen in matters which regard the state of the Church, we are to have recourse to the chief priest of the Roman Church" (Ep. xxxvi in P. L., LIX, 253). Doubt as to the Faith is thus impossible in the Catholic Church without infringing the principle of authority on which the Church itself depends. The field, however, which is open to a variety of opinions on questions not directly involving the essential doctrines of the Faith is still a very wide one; and though its extent may be further limited by future dogmatic decisions, it is probable on the other hand that it will be increased in the future, as in the past, by the emergence of doubtful questions as to the exact bearing of dogmatic truth upon fresh discoveries or theories of all kinds.

It will be evident from what has been said that doubt cannot coexist either with faith or knowledge in regard to any given subject; faith and doubt are mutually exclusive, and knowledge which is limited by a doubt, becomes, in regard to the subject or part of a subject to which the doubt applies, no longer knowledge but opinion. A moral certainty--that is, one which is founded on the normal course of human action--does not strictly exclude doubt, but, as excluding prudent doubt, must be considered a sufficient practical guide (cf. Butler, "Analogy of Religion", introduction, and pt. II, ch. vi). Thus doubt is sometimes said to imply belief; though such belief or practical certainty cannot properly be held to rise above the most probable kind of opinion. The rhetorical conception of the faith that "lives in honest doubt" (Tennyson, In Memoriam) must be taken to signify that truthful and serious habit of mind which refuses to submit to deception on motives furnished by intellectual sloth or the desire of worldly advantage. Catholic philosophy is entirely opposed both to the Pyrrhonist doubt of external reality and to that form of Idealism which is closely connected with the Kantian method on its sceptical side, and which seeks to reduce all dogma to the mere expression of subjective religious conceptions, relegating the objective facts with which dogma is concerned to the domain of symbol and parable. In the view of the Scholastic system human experience is a true perception of external reality through the senses and the intellect; phenomena being the object both of the senses, which they directly affect, and, after a different manner, of the intellect, which apprehends through sensible impressions the true nature and principles of the reality which causes those impressions. The facts of revelation to which the Church bears witness are in this sense real and objective, and may neither be explained away nor set aside by any system of historical or scientific criticism. Such is the purport of the Encyclical "Pascendi Dominici gregis" (1907), which both controverts and condemns the attempt to evacuate dogma of its true significance made by the method of religious speculation known as Modernism.

PRACTICAL DOUBT

Practical doubt, or doubt as to the lawfulness of an action is, according to the teaching of moral theology, incompatible with right action; since to act with a doubtful conscience is obviously to act in disregard of the moral law. To act with a doubtful conscience is therefore, sinful; and the doubt must be removed before any action can be justified. It frequently happens, however, that the solution of a practical doubt is not attainable, while some decision is necessary. In such cases the conscience may obtain a "reflexive" certainty by adopting an approved opinion as to the lawfulness of the action contemplated, apart from the intrinsic merits of the question. The question has been much discussed among different schools of theologians whether the opinion so followed must be of greatly preponderating authority in favour of liberty in order to justify an action the lawfulness of which appears intrinsically doubtful, whether it must be merely more probable than the contrary one, or equally probable, or merely probable in itself, even though less so than its contrary. (See MORAL THEOLOGY; PROBABILISM.) The fast, however, is the theory now generally accepted for all practical purposes; and the principle that lex dubia non obligat--i.e. that a law which is doubtful in its application to the case in hand does not bind--is universally admitted. It must be observed, however, that where the question is one not merely of positive law but of securing a certain practical result, only the "safer" course may be followed. No opinion however probable, is allowed to take precedence of the most certain means of securing such ends; e.g. in providing for the validity of the sacraments, in discharging obligations of justice, or in avoiding injury to others. Thus doubtful baptisms and ordinations must be repeated conditionally. (See AGNOSTICISM; CERTITUDE; EPISTEMOLOGY; FAITH; HERESY; INFALLIBILITY; SCEPTICISM.)

A.B. SHARPE

Gavin Douglas

Scottish prelate and poet, born about 1474; died 1522; he was the third son of Archibald, Fifth Earl of Angus, known as "Bell-the-Cat". Educated for the Church at the universities of St. Andrews and Paris, he held for some years a benefice in East Lothian, and during this period composed most ofthe poetical works which have made his name famous. In 1501 he became provost of the collegiate church of St. Giles, Edinburgh, and subsequently, through the influence of Queen Margaret, who had married his nephew, theyoung Earl of Angus, he obtained the abbacy of Arbroath and later the Bishopric of Dunkeld. The queen's efforts to have him promoted to the primacy were unsuccessful; and when the popular indignation at her marriage with Angus resulted in her being deprived of the regency, Douglas was brought to trial by the new regent, the Duke of Albany, for intriguing with the queen to obtain ecclesiastical promotion without the consent of Parliament. He was imprisoned for a year in Edinburgh Castle, and after his release continued for a time in the administration of his diocese. When, however, Margaret separated from her husband and sided with Albany against the Douglasses, Gavin was deprived of his see. He fled to England in 1521 and was kindly received by Henry VIII, but he died of plague in the following year. He was buried in the Savoy Church in London.

It was unfortunate for Douglas's future reputation that his high birth and family connections plunged him into the political turmoil of his time, and thus prematurely closed his career as a poet and scholar of the first order. His participation in the internal divisions by which Scotland was torn during most of his life ended, as far as he was concerned, in failure, exile, and death; it is as a literary genius, rather than a churchman or a statesman, that he lives in Scottish history. It was during his quiet life as a country parson that he wrote the gorgeous allegory called the "Palice of Honour", whose wealth of illustration and poetical embellishments at once won renown for its author; and a little later he produced the translation of Virgil's "Æneid", which gives him his chief claim to literary immortality. The translation is a rather free adaptation of the Roman poet, written in the "Scottis" language then current, while to each book is prefixed an original prologue in verse. It was printed (for the third time) by the Bannatyne Club in 1839. Douglas wrote two other poems, "King Hart" and "Conscience", and translated also Ovid's "De Remedio Amoris". His complete works were first collected and published in Edinburgh (ed. Small), in 1874.

D.O. HUNTER-BLAIR

Stephen Doutreleau

Missionary, born in France, 11 October, 1693; date of death uncertain. He became a Jesuit novice at the age of twenty-two and migrated to Louisiana, U.S.A., with the Ursuline nuns in 1727. Soon after his arrival he was sent to the Illinois mission, for in 1728 he seems to have been at Post Vincennes, "the fort on the Wabash", which was established about that time. On 1 January, 1730, he set out for New Orleans on business connected with the mission. The Natchez Indians, only a few weeks before, had massacred all the inhabitants of the little French village of Natchez, and the Yazoos, a neighbouring Indian tribe, had followed their example. Two Jesuit missionaries perished in these uprisings. Ignorant of the state of the country and accompanied by four or five French voyageurs, Father Doutreleau landed at the mouth of the Yazoo River to offer up the Holy Sacrifice. The Indians attacked the little party killing one of the Frenchmen and wounding the missionary in the arm. Doutreleau escaped to his canoe with two of his companions and began their flight down the Mississippi. After many dangers they reached the French camp at Tonica Bay, where they were received with great kindness; their wounds were dressed and after a night's rest they proceeded unmolested to New Orleans. A journey of four hundred leagues through a hostile country had been accomplished. Shortly after, Father Doutreleau became chaplain of the French troops in Louisiana, and in this capacity accompanied them on one expedition. At his own request he was sent back to the Illinois Indians, but how long he remained is uncertain. He was at one time chaplain of the hospital at New Orleans. In 1747 he returned to France after labouring as a missionary in the Mississippi Valley for twenty years.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Dove

(Latin columba).

In Christian antiquity the dove appears as a symbol and as a Eucharistic vessel.

As an Artistic Symbol

As a Christian symbol it is of very frequent occurrence in ancient ecclesiastical art.

• As a symbol of the Holy Spirit it appears especially in representations of the baptism of Our Lord (Matt., iii, 16) and of Pentecost. St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is generally shown with a dove on his shoulder, symbolizing inspiration or rather Divine guidance. A dove of gold was hung up in the baptistery at Reims after the baptism of Clovis; in general the symbol occurs frequently in connexion with early representations of baptism. In ancient times a dove-like vessel was frequently suspended over the baptismal font and in that case
• As a symbol of martyrdom it indicated the action of the Holy Spirit in bestowal of the fortitude necessary for the endurance of suffering.
• As a symbol of the Church, the agent through which the Holy Spirit works on earth. When two doves appear the symbolism may represent, according to Macarius (Hagioglypta, 222), the Church of the circumcision and that of the Gentiles.

On a sarcophagus or on other funeral monuments the dove signifies:

• the peace of the departed soul, especially if, as is often the case in ancient examples, it bears an olive branch in its beak;
• the hope of the Resurrection.

In each case the symbolism is derived from the story of Noah and the Flood. Such is the meaning of the dove (columbula, palumba sine felle) in numerous epitaphs of the Roman catacombs. Occasionally funeral lamps were made in the shape of a dove. Two doves on a funeral monument sometimes signify the conjugal love and affection of the parties buried there. The dove in flight is the symbol of the Ascension of Christ or of the entry into glory of the martyrs and saints (cf. Ps. cxxiii, 7: "Our soul is escaped as a bird from the snare of the hunters, the snare is broken and we are delivered." In like manner the caged dove signifies the human soul yet imprisoned in the flesh and held captive during the period of mortal life. In general, the dove as a Christian emblem signifies the Holy Spirit either personally or in His works. It signifies also the Christian soul, not the human soul as such, but as indwelt by the Holy Spirit; especially, therefore, as freed from the toils of the flesh and entered into rest and glory.

As a Eucharistic Vessel

The reservation of the Holy Eucharist for the use of the sick was, certainly since early medieval times, effected in many parts of Europe by means of a vessel in the form of a dove, suspended by chains to the baldachino and thus hung above the altar. Mention may be made here of the (two) doves occasionally represented in the Roman catacombs as drinking from a Eucharistic chalice (Schnyder, "Die Darstellungen des eucharist. Kelches auf altchr. Grabinschriften", in "Stromation Archaeologicon", Rome, 1900, 97-118). The idea of the Eucharistic vessel was probably taken from the dove-like receptacle used at an early period in the baptisteries and often suspended above the fonts. These vessels were usually made of gold or silver. This was no doubt always the case if the vessel was designed to be the immediate holder of the Blessed Sacrament, since the principle that no base material ought to be used for this purpose is early and general. But when, as seems generally to have been the case in later times, the dove was only the outer vessel enshrining the pyx which itself contained the Blessed Sacrament, it came about that any material might be used which was itself suitable and dignified. Mabillon (Iter Ital., 217) tells us that he saw one at the monastery of Bobbio made of gilded leather, and one is shown to this day in the church of San Nazario at Milan which is enameled on the outside and silver gilt within. The exact time at which such vessels first came into use is disputed, but it was certainly at some early date. Tertullian (C. Valentinian. cap. iii) speaks of the Church as columbae domus, the house of the dove, and his words are sometimes quoted as exhibiting the use of such vessels in the third century. The reference, however, is clearly to the Holy Spirit. In the life of St. Basil, attributed to St. Amphilochius, is perhaps the earliest clear mention of the Eucharistic dove. "Cum panem divisisset in tres partes . . . tertiam positam super columbam auream, desuper sacrum altare suspendit" (When he had divided the bread into three pieces . . . the third part placed in a golden dove, he suspended, etc., Vita Bas., P. G., XXXIX). St. Chrysostom's expression concerning the Holy Eucharist, convestitum Spiritu Sancto, clothed with the Holy Spirit (Hom. xiii, ad pop. Antioch.), is generally taken to allude to this practice of reserving the Holy Eucharist in a dove, the emblem of the Holy Spirit. The same idea is expressed by Sedulius (Epist. xii) in the verses, "Sanctusque columbae Spiritus in specie Christum vestivit honore" -- "And the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove has robed Christ in honour".

The general, and certainly the earliest custom, both East and West, was to suspend the dove from the ciborium or baldachino. At a later period in some parts of the West, especially in Rome, a custom grew up of placing a tower of precious material upon the altar, and enclosing the dove with the Blessed Sacrament within this tower. Thus, in the "Liber Pontificalis" which contains ample records of the principal gifts made to the great basilicas in the fourth and succeeding centuries, we never find that the dove was presented without the tower as its complement. Thus in the life of Pope Hilary it is said that he presented to the baptistery at the Lateran turrem argenteam . . . et columbam auream. In the life of St. Sylvester (ibid.) Constantine is said to have given to the Vatican Basilica pateram . . . cum turre et columba. Innocent I (ibid.) gave to another church turrem argenteam cum columba.

ARTHUR S. BARNES

George Dowdall

Archbishop of Armagh, b. at Drogheda, County Louth, Ireland, in 1487; d. at London, 15 August, 1558. He entered the Order of Crutched Friars, and was the last prior of their monastery at Ardee. On the suppression of the monastery by Henry VIII, in 1539, he received a pension of £20 a year. After the death of Primate Cromer, four years later, he was appointed to the See of Armagh by the king, but his appointment was not recognized by the pope. Dowdall acknowledged Henry VIII as supreme head of the Church on earth, and denounced the real primate, Robert Wauchope, to the Government. Though a schismatic, he nevertheless vigorously opposed the introduction of Protestantism into Ireland in the following reign and became the leader of the Catholic party. His opposition proving fruitless, he withdrew from public life in disgust and shortly afterwards retired to the Continent. On the death of Primate Wauchope, Dowdall, having renounced the schism, was appointed in 1553 by the pope to the very see of which he had been the schismatical archbishop. Ruling during nearly all the reign of Queen Mary, he exerted himself to repair the ravages to religion wrought in the preceding reigns. He held an important synod in Drogheda in 1554 in which decrees were passed against priests who had presumed to marry.

AMBROSE COLEMAN

James Dowdall

Martyr, date of birth unknown; executed for his faith at Exeter, England, 20 September, 1600.

He was a merchant of Drogheda, Ireland, though several authorities, including Challoner, describe him as a native of Wexford. Further confusion is added by reason of the fact that another contemporary, James Dowdall, died a confessor. According to Rothe, however, the martyr belonged to Drogheda, and traded with England and the Continent.

In the summer of 1598, when returning from France, his ship was driven by stress of weather onto the coast of Devonshire, and he was arrested by William Bourchier, Earl of Bath, who had him under examination. Dowdall publicly avowed that he rejected the queen's supremacy, and only recognized that of the Roman pontiff. The earl forwarded the examination to Sir Robert Cecil, and had Dowdall committed to Exeter jail. Whilst in prison he was tortured and put to the rack, but continued unchanged in his fidelity to the ancient faith. On 18 June, 1599, the Earl of Bath wrote to Sir Robert Cecil for instructions in regard to James Dowdall, who had been detained in prison almost a year. Accordingly he was tried at the Exeter assizes, and was ordered to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. His name is included in the Apostolic Process of the Irish Martyrs whose cause is at present before the Congregation of Sacred Rites.

W.H. GRATTAN-FLOOD

Dower

(Lat. doarium; Fr. douaire)

A provision for support during life accorded by law to a wife surviving her hustand. Being for the widow and being accorded by law, dower differs essentially from a conventional marriage portion such as the dos of the old Roman law, the French dot, or the English dowry. Dower is thought to have been suggested by the marriage gift which Tacitus found to be usual among the Germans. This gift he terms dos, but contrasts it with the dos of the Roman law, which was a gift on the part of the wife to the husband, while in Germany the gift was made by the husband to the wife (Larousse, Grand dictionnaire universel, Paris, 1870, s. v. Douaire). There was indeed in the Roman law what was termed donatio propter nuptias, a gift from the family of the husband, but this was only required if the dos were brought on the part of the wife. So too in the special instance of a widow (herself poor and undotated) of a husband rich at the time of his death, an ordinance of the Christian Emperor Justinian secured her the right to a part of her husband's property, of which no disposition of his could deprive her.

But the general establishment of the principle of dower in the customary law of Western Europe, according to Maine (Ancient Law, 3rd Amer. ed., New York, 1887, 218), is to be traced to the influence of the Church, and to be included perhaps among its most arduous triumphs. Dower is an outcome of the ecclesiastical practice of exacting from the husband at marriage a promise to endow his wife, a promise retained in form even now in the marriage ritual of the Established Church in England. (See Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England", II, 134, note p.) In an ordinance of King Philip Augustus of France (1214), and in the almost contemporaneous Magna Charta (1215), dower is referred to. But it seems to have already become customary law in Normandy, Sicily, and Naples, as well as in England. The object of both ordinance and charter was to regulate the amount of the dower where this was not the subject of voluntary arrangement, dower by English law consisting of a wife's life estate in one-third of the lands of the husband "of which any issue which she might have had might by possibility have been heir" (Blackstone, op. cit., 131).

During the pre-Reformation period, a man who became a monk and made his religious profession in England was deemed civilly dead, "dead in law" (Blackstone, op. cit., Bk. II, 121); consequently his heirs inherited his land forthwith as though he had died a natural, instead of a legal, death. Assignment of dower in his hand would nevertheless be postponed until the natural death of such a religious. For only by his wife's consent could a married man be legally professed in religion. And she was not allowed by her consent to exchange her husband for dower. After the Reformation and the enactment of the English statute of 11 and 12 William III, prohibiting "papists" from inheriting or purchasing lands, a Roman Catholic widow was not held to be debarred of dower, for dower accruing by operation of law was deemed to be not within the prohibitions of the statute. By a curious disability of old English law a Jewess born in England would be debarred of dower in land which her husband, he having been an Englishman of the same faith and becoming converted after marriage, should purchase, if she herself remained unconverted.

There is judicial authority of the year 1310 for the proposition that dower was favoured by law (Year Books of Edward II, London, 1905, Vol. III, 189), and at a less remote period it was said to be with life and liberty one of three things which "the law favoreth". But an English statute of the year 1833 has impaired the inviolability of dower by empowering husbands to cut off by deed or will their wives from dower. It was the law of dower unimpaired by statute, which according to the American commentator, Chancellor Kent, has been "with some modifications everywhere adopted as part of the municipal jurisprudence of the United States" (Commentaries on American Law, IV, 36). But while the marriage portion, dot, is, yet dower is not, known to the law of Louisiana, and it has now been expressly abolished in some other States and in some territories. The instances of legislative modifications are numerous and important.

Of dower (douaire) as it existed in the old French law no trace is to be found in the existing law of France. But brought to Canada from the mother country in pre-Revolutionary times, customary dower accruing by operation of law is yet recognized in the law of the former French Province of Quebec. The civil death which by English law seems to have applied to men only, might be by the French law incurred by women taking perpetual religious vows. A widow, therefore, thus entering into religion, would lose her dower, although in some regions she was allowed to retain a moderate income. (See Larousse, op. cit.) And now by the law of Quebec a widow joining certain religious orders of the province is deemed civilly dead and undoubtedly would suffer loss of dower.

Maine, Lectures on the Early History of Institutions (6th ed., London, 1893), 219, 336, 337; Mackeldy, Handbook of the Roman Law, tr. Dropsie (Philadelphia, 1883), §§ 572, 679; Glosson, in La Grande Encycl., s. v. Douaire; Stephen, New Commentaires on the Laws of England (14th ed., London, 1903), 153, 155, 157, 159; Howard, Several special cases on the laws against the further growth of 'Popery' in Ireland (some cases on the English statute, etc.) (Dublin, 1775), 303; Park, A Treatise on the Law of Dower (Philadelphia, 1836), 149; Crabbe, Treatise on the Law of Dower (2nd ed., Philadelphia, 1883), 14-58; Beauchamp, The Civil Code of the fProvince of Quebec (Montreal, 1905), §§ 1431, 1434, 1462, note to §34.

Charles W. Sloane

Religious Dower

(Lat. dos religiosa).

Because of its analogy with the dower that a woman brings to her husband when she marries, the name "religious dower" has been given to the sum of money or the property that a religious woman, or nun (religiosa) brings, for her maintenance, into the convent where she desires to make her profession. It is not a question here of the more or less generous donations made by the young woman or her family either to the convent or to some of the good works that it carries on, nor of the amount paid in for the support of the postulant or novice until the time of her profession, but of a sum (usually a fixed one) set apart for the support of a religious who, by her profession, has become a member of the community.

The custom of religious dower was not in vogue in the ancient Church. Introduced occasionally for nuns under solemn vows (the only vows that existed in ancient times), it became gradually the rule in all communities, particularly in congregations under simple vows, these being now the most numerous. According to common ecclesiastical law, every convent had formerly to be provided, at the time of its foundation, with the resources necessary for the maintenance of a fixed number of nuns, not less than twelve. These were received gratuitously and without dower and, although in no wise prohibited from presenting the monastery with a portion of their property, were supported out of the revenues assigned to the monastery for this purpose. That is why the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, c. iii, De Regul.) established in this regard the following rule: "Let only such a number [of religious] be determined, and henceforth maintained, as can be fittingly supported, either by the proper revenue [of each house] or by the customary alms" [in the case of mendicant orders]. The determination of this number belongs to the bishop, who, if there be occasion, will act together with the regular superior (Gregory XIII, Constitution, Deo sacris, 15 Dec., 1572). The Council of Trent does not speak of religious dower. However, from the end of the sixteenth century the prescription relative to the fixed number of religious had fallen into desuetude, and the dower came into use; and this for two reasons. The first was the acceptance of "supernumerary" religious, that is of a larger number than the resources of the convent warranted; hence it was but just that the amount required for their maintenance should be demanded of them. The second reason lay in the decrease of the resources of the ancient convents and in the absence of property for the many new houses founded towards the end of the sixteenth century. An evidence of the simultaneous existence of these two causes is found in the general decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 6 Sept., 1604 (in Bizzarri, Collectanea, 269), ordaining that the supernumerary religious should deposit a dower equal to twice that of the others and amounting to at least 400 écus (about $400). This was the minimum, and each house was to set its own figure, to be regulated according to circumstances. Though deposited at the time of receiving the habit, the convent did not acquire possession of the dower until the ceremony of profession, and if the novice left before being professed, it was restored to her (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, cap. xvi). Dispensation from solemn vows was, it may almost be said, unknown, and the obligatory restitution of dower had not been provided for in the case of a religious leaving her community; it was the result of equity rather than law. But since the decree "Perpensis" of 3 May, 1902, which requires of all religious under solemn vows a probationary period of three years under simple vows, this restitution has become a rule. Article X says: "The dower established for each monastery should be deposited before the profession of simple vows"; and Article XII continues: "If a sister who has professed simple vows retires from the monastery, either after being dispensed from her vows by the Holy See or after sentence of dismissal (before the solemn vows), the capital of her dower is to be restored to her, but not the interest."

Such is also the general rule for congregations under simple vows. Stipulations concerning the dower are very clearly set forth in the "Normæ", rules in use by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for the approbation of religious under simple vows, published 28 June, 1901, ch. vii, articles 91-94. Each congregation of nuns should settle in its statutes the dower, equal in all cases, for the choir religious; it should even establish a lesser dower (but the same for each one) to be deposited by the lay, or assistant, sisters. The superior cannot receive a religious without a dower or with an insufficient dower, except by permission of the bishop, if the congregation be diocesan, or by that of the Congregation of Religious, if the institute be approved by Rome. The required dower must be duly pledged to the congregation prior to the taking of the habit and must be deposited shortly before the profession. Thus deposited, such a dower cannot be alienated, that is, it cannot be used by the congregation in whatever way it may deem fit, as, for instance, to meet building expenses or discharge debts, but must be prudently and advantageously invested. Even though the funds be administered by the mother-house or the provincial, the income from each dower must be given to the house where the religious resides who brought in that dower. Although no longer the property of the nun, the dower becomes entirely the property of the institute only at the death of the subject, for whom, until then, it must remain set apart, so that, should a religious withdraw from a community either on the expiration of her temporary vows, or after a dispensation, or finally on account of dismissal, the capital of her dower must be restored to her.

Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, s. v. Moniales, art. 11; Battandier, Guide canonique pour les constitutions des sœurs à vœux simples (Paris, 1905), nos. 135-140; Bastien, Directoire canonique à l'usage des congrégations à vœux simples (Maredsous, 1904), nos 109-114, 198, 214; PrÜmmer, Manuale juris ecclesiastici (Freiburg im Br., 1907), II, 43.

A. Boudinhon.

Down and Connor

Diocese of Down and Connor (Dunensis et Connorensis)

A line drawn from Whitehouse on Belfast Lough due west to the Clady River, thence by the river itself to Muckamore and Lough Neagh, marks the boundary between the Diocese of Down and the Diocese of Connor. North of this line to the sea and the Bann, including the greater part of the County Antrim and a small portion of Derry, is the Diocese of Connor. South of the line, the remainder of Antrim, except the parish of Aghalee, belonging to Dromore, belongs to the Diocese of Down, as also the whole of the County Down, except the baronies of Iveagh and part of Kinelearty. The extent of the united dioceses is 597,450 Irish acres (about 576 sq. Miles).

Each diocese was a collection of ancient sees. Within the limits of Down, and founded in St. Patrick's time, there were: Raholp, founded by St. Tassach, Gortgrib by Vinoch, Bright by Loarn, Mahee Island by St. Mochay, Moghera by St. Donard. There were also: Moville, founded by St. Finnian, and Bangor by St. Comgall, the later an abbey, but often ruled in aftertimes by a bishop. St. Fergus is named as first Bishop of Down. In ancient times the place was called Dun Celtair, Celtair being one of the Red Branch knights. Afterwards it was called Dun-da-Leth-Glaisse, "the fort of the two half-chains". According to tradition, two young chiefs had long pined in King Laeghaire's prison. St. Patrick miraculously struck off the chain which bound them, and the prisoners, thus released, hastened to their father's residence at Dun Celtair, flinging from them the pieces of the severed chain; hence the new name. A further change occurred after St. Patrick's death. Dying at Saul (493), he was buried at Down, which then contained no church. Subsequently the remains of St. Brigid were brought there from Kildare, as were some relics of St. Columba from Iona. Meanwhile the ancient Dun Celtair had become Downpatrick, a town overshadowing all the neighboring towns, the capital also of the Diocese of Down, which in process of time absorbed all the surrounding sees.

Like Down, Connor, founded in 480 by St. Macnisse, was a collection of smaller sees. These were Kilroot, Drumtullagh, Culfeightrim, Coleraine, Inispollen, Armoy, and Rashee. The date of the founding of each of these sees is uncertain, as also the dates of their absorption; nor can a regular succession of bishops be discovered. By the twelfth century all the sees had ceased to exist except Connor. Its western boundary then was the Roe; but by the synod of Rath-Breasail (1118), when the number and limits of the Irish dioceses were fixed, the Bann was made the western boundary of Connor, and Down was joined to it, but only for a brief period. In 1124 St. Malachy became Archbishop of Armagh; but when he resigned the primacy, in 1137, he became Bishop of Down, again dividing the two sees. This separation was recognized by the Synod of Kells (1152), and continued till 1441, when John Cely, Bishop of Down, was deprived for having violated his vow of chastity. Meanwhile the annals record the death of many distinguished men, bishops and others, connected with both dioceses. It is further recorded that in 831 Connor was plundered by the Danes, and Down in 942; that in 1177 Downpatrick was captured by John de Courcy, who imprisoned the bishop; that in 1183 de Courcy turned the secular canons out of the cathedral and replaced them by Benedictine monks from Chester; that in 1186 the relics of St. Patrick, St. Brigid, and St. Combra were discovered there and reinterred in the church with great solemnity; that in 1315 a great battle was fought at Connor; and that the whole extent of the two dioceses suffered grievously during the invasion of Edward Bruce.

The primate John Prene resisted the union of Down with Connor in 1441, and it did not finally take effect till 1451. Since that date both dioceses, recognized as one, have remained under the rule of one bishop. During the troubled times of the Reformation and the wars of the O'Neills, the Ulster counties suffered much, though the old Faith was still maintained. But the plantation of Ulster replaced the greater number of the Catholics by English Protestants and Scotch Presbyterians. Later on, in the contests of the seventeenth century, the tide of war frequently rolled over Antrim and Down, with consequent destruction of Catholic property. The penal laws followed; and such was the combined effect of plantation and proscription that in 1670 in the whole of Down and Connor there were but 2500 Catholic families. For nearly sixty years subsequently the diocese was ruled by vicars. When at length the pressure of penal legislation was removed Catholicism revived rapidly. In the period from 1810 to 1840 no less than forty new Catholic churches were built. The progress thus made under Dr. Crolly (1825-1835) and Dr. Denvir (1835-65) was continued under Dr. Dorrian (1865-86) and Dr. MacAlister (1886-95); nor did any of his predecessors show greater energy and zeal than Dr. Henry, whose death occurred with such tragic suddenness early in 1908. During the nineteenth century splendid churches were built at Newtownards, Hollywood, Balymoney, and Belfast, and on every side visible signs of Catholic progress appeared.

This prosperity is largely due to the rapid growth of Belfast. Situated on the shores of Belfast Lough, its site was occupied in the sixteenth century only by a strong castle, then in the hands of the O'Neills of Clannaboy. From them it passed at the close of the century to the British Government, and in 1603 the castle and land adjoining were granted by King James to Sir Arthur Chichester. He laid out and planted a small town, which, in 1613, was made a corporation by royal charter. Its growth was slow, and during the seventeenth century it was entirely overshadowed by the neighboring town of Carrickfergus. About 1700, Belfast had a population of 2000, and a good deal of trade; in 1757 a population of 8000. Henceforth its rise was rapid and continuous. Its population in 1871 was 174,000; in 1881, 208,122; in 1891, 255,950; in 1901, with an enlarged city area, 348,876. It sends four members to Parliament, and is ruled by a lord mayor, fifteen aldermen, and forty-five councilors. In commerce and shipping, in trade and manufactures, it is the first city in Ireland. Catholicism has more than kept pace with the general advance of the city. In 1708 there were but seven Catholics in Belfast, and not till 1783 was there a Catholic church. Belfast is now the episcopal seat, with ten city parishes, a flourishing diocesan seminary, and many educational and charitable institutions. Among the remarkable men of the diocese the following may be mentioned: St. Macnisse, the patron saint of Connor, and St. Malachy, the patron saint of Down; St. Tassach, who attended St. Patrick in his last illness; St. Comgall, who founded the monastery of Bangor; St. Finnian, founder of Moville; St. Colman Ela, founder of Muckamore in Antrim; St. Mochay, Bishop on Nendrum; St. Donard, Bishop of Maghera; St. Dochona, Bishop of Connor. In the sixteenth century the notorious Miler Magrath was Bishop of Down and Connor; and in the next century the martyred Cornelius O'Devanny, and the fighting bishop, Herber MacMahon, who also met a martyr's fate.

Statistics (1908): Parishes, 60; secular clergy, 167; regular clergy, 21; churches 114; colleges, 2; monasteries, 5; convents 16; total Catholic population (1901), 156,693; total population of all creeds, 671,266.

O'Laverty, A Historical Account of the Diocese of Down and Connor (Dublin, 1878-95); Reeves, Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Down, Connor and Dromore (Dublin, 1847); Brady, Episcopal Succession (Rome, 1876); Lanigan, Ecclesiastical History of Ireland (Dublin, 1822); Healy, Life and Writings of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1905); Meehan, Irish Hierarchy (Dublin, 1872); Benn, History of Belfast (London, 1877-80); Irish Catholic Directories.

E.A. D'ALTON

Downside Abbey

Near Bath, Somersetshire, England, was founded at Douai, Flanders, under the patronage of St. Gregory the Great, in 1605 by the Venerable John Roberts, first prior, and some other English monks who had received the habit and taken vows in the Spanish Benedictine Congregation. In 1611 Dom Philip de Caverel, Abbot of Saint Vaast's at Arras, built a monastery for the community in Douai, and consequently is revered as its founder. For some years the foundation wa embroiled in attacks from without, and also in disputes as to a union with other English Benedictines, all of which were settled in 1633 by the Bull "Plantata" of Urban VIII.

From the first a school or college for lay pupils, sons of English Catholic gentry, has been an integral part of the institution. This undertaking, conducted on traditional English public school lines, has always absorbed much of the energies of the community, whose other chief external work has consisted in supplying various missions or parishes in England. When Charles II established for his queen a Catholic chapel royal at St. James's palace, the community to serve it was supplied from St. Gregory's at Douai, and certain relics and church-plate then presented are still in existence at Downside. On the outbreak of the French Revolution the school was disbanded and the monks put in prison, where they remained nearly two years. At length in March, 1795, they were allowed to proceed to England where an asylum was supplied by Sir Edward Smythe, fifth Baronet, a former pupil, who lent his Shropshire seat of Acton Burnell to his old masters for use as a monastery and school., In 1814 the establishment was moved to Mount Pleasant, Downside, a small manor-house with sixty-six acres of land, bought for £7000, largely the savings of the economy of the previous nineteen years. In 1823 Dr. Baines, Vicar Apostolic of the Western District, proposed to the community that they should abandon the monastic state and become a kind of diocesan seminary under himself. This extraordinary suggestion being rejected, the bishop applied to the Holy See for the suppression of the monastery on the ground of some alleged flaw in its canonical erection; after much litigation the pope decided in favour of the monks on every point. Since then the establishment has increased steadily in size and importance, new buildings being added in 1823, 1853, and almost continually since 1870. In 1899 Pope Leo XIII raised the priory to abbatial rank, the forty-fifth prior, Dom Edmund Ford, being elected first abbot, on whose resignation in 1906, Dom Cuthbert Butler was chosen to succeed him.

Six monks of St. Gregory's have died martyrs for the Catholic Faith and are already pronounced Venerable, viz. Dom George Gervaise, martyred 1608; Dom John Roberts, the first prior, 1610; Dom Maurus Scot, 1612; Dom Ambrose Barlow, 1641; Dom Philip Powell, 1646; and Brother Thomas Pickering, 1679. Besides these the community has given to the Church three archbishops, Dom Bede Polding and Dom Bede Vaughan, the first two archbishops of Sydney, New South Wales; and Dom Bernard Ullathorne, first bishop of Birmingham and titular Archbishop of Cabasa, well known as an ascetical writer. Also six bishops, Dom Philip Ellis, Dom Laurence York, and Dom Gregory Sharrock, all three successively Vicars Apostolic of the Western District; more recently Dom Placid Morris, Vicar Apostolic of Maritius and for many years assistant to Cardinal Wiseman; Dom Joseph Brown, first Bishop of Newport and Menevia; and Dom Henry Davis, Bishop of Maitland, New South Wales. From many other notable names may be mentioned Dom Serenus Cressy, author of the "Church History of Brittany"; Dom John Huddlestone, who was instrumental in saving Charles II after Worcester and reconciled him to the Church on his death-bed; the Abbot Sweeney, the well-known preacher; Dom Jerome Vaughan, founder of the Abbey of Fort Augustus, N. B.; Dom Aidan Gasquet the historian, Abbot President of the English Benedictines and also head of the Pontifical Commission for the revision of the Vulgate. Among the alumni of St. Gregory's School, though not monks in the community, were Bishop Charles Walmesley, who consecrated Dr. Carroll the first Bishop of Baltimore, U.S.A.; John Steevens, editor of Dugdale's "Monasticon"; Henry Carey, author of "God save the King"; Sir John Day, one of the best known English judges; and Bishop Patrick J. Donahue, of Wheeling, U.S.A.

The abbey buildings now consist of a monastery for about fifty monks; school buildings for 1340 boarders; guest-house, the original building bought in 1814; and the abbey church, for exterior view of which see The Catholic Encyclopedia, I, 14. The last-named building consists at present of transepts, choir, and fifteen side chapels only; it is 230 feet long, and 70 feet high internally Even in its unfinished state it ranks as one of the finest modern Gothic buildings in England, and contains the tomb of the Irish martyr, Venerable Oliver Plunket, Archbishop of Armagh. The community numbers eighty-four choir monks; there are no lay brothers. About half the monks work on the twenty-two missions or parishes in various parts of England, which are dependent on the abbey. Besides the school attached to the monastery, Downside has two other schools at Ealing, London, W, and at Gorey, Co. Wexford, Ireland; a house of studies for its monks at Cambridge University and another for students in London, near the British Museum. The "Downside Review", a periodical now in its twenty-eighth year, devoted chiefly to local, monastic, and liturgical interests, and in which are many articles of value, is published every four months. The "Downside Masses" and "Downside Motets" indicate the abbey's interest in the revival of polyphonic music; a similar interest in Christian art being shown in the "Downside Prints", a series of small devotional pictures reproduced from ancient masters. Attached to the abbey are the titular Abbacies of Glastonbury and St. Alban's, and the cathedral priories of Canterbury, Bath, Coventry, and Norwich. The arms of Downside are: Or a cross moline gules; the abbot's seal bears an effigy of Bl. Richard Whiting, martyr, the last abbot of the neighbouring Abbey of Glastonbury.

      Weldon, Chronological Notes on English Congregation O. S. B. (Privately printed, Worcester, 1881); Taunton, English Black Monks of St. Benedict (London, 1897), II; Birt, Downside (London, 1902); Snow, Necrology of English Benedictines (London, 1883); Sketches of Old Downside (London, 1903); Hudleston, Guide to Downside Abbey Church (London, 1905); Illustrated articles in Christian Art, I, 135; Architectural Review, (XXIII, 40; Downside Review, I-XXVII, many articles passim.

G. Roger Huddleston

Doxology

In general this word means a short verse praising God and beginning, as a rule, with the Greek word Doxa. The custom of ending a rite or a hymn with such a formula comes from the Synagogue (cf. the Prayer of Manasses: tibi est gloria in sæcula sæculorum. Amen). St. Paul uses doxologies constantly (Rom., xi, 36; Gal., i, 5; Eph., iii, 21; etc.). The earliest examples are addressed to God the Father alone, or to Him through (dia) the Son (Rom., xvi, 27; Jude, 25; I Clem., xli; Mart. Polyc., xx; etc.) and in (en) or with (syn, meta) the Holy Ghost (Mart. Polyc., xiv, xxii, etc.). The form of baptism (Matt., xxviii, 19) had set an example of naming the three Persons in parallel order. Especially in the fourth entury, as a protest against Arian subordination (since heretics appealed to these prepositions; cf. St. Basil, "De Spir, Sancto", ii-v), the custom of using the form: "Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost", became universal among Catholics. From this time we must distinguish two doxologies, a greater (doxologia maior) and a shorter (minor). The greater doxology is the Gloria in Excelsis Deo (q.v.) in the Mass. The shorter form, which is the one generally referred to under the name "doxology", is the Gloria Patri. It is continued by an answer to the effect that this glory shall last for ever. The form, eis tous aionas ton aionon is very common in the first centuries (Rom., xvi, 27; Gal., i, 5; I Tim., i, 17; Heb., xiii, 21; I Peter, iv, 11; I Clem., xx, xxxii, xxxviii, xliii, xlv, etc.; Mart. Polyc., xxii, etc.). It is a common Hebraism (Tob., xiii, 23; Ps lxxxiii, 5; repeatedly in the Apocalypse: i, 6, 18; xiv, 11; xix, 3; etc.) meaning simply "for ever". The simple form, eis tous aionas, is also common (Rom., xi, 36; Doctr. XII Apost., ix, x; in the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, passim) Parallel formulæ are: eis tous mellontas aionas (Mart. Polyc., xiv); apo geneas eis genean (ibid.); etc. This expression was soon enlarged into: "now and ever and in ages of ages" (cf. Heb., xiii, 8; Mart. Polyc., xiv, etc.). In this form it occurs constantly at the end of prayers in the Greek Liturgy of St. James (Brightman, Eastern Liturgies, pp. 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, etc.). and in all the Eastern rites. The Greek form then became: Doxa patri kai yio kai hagio pneumati, kai nun kai aei kai eis tous aionas ton aionon. Amen. In this shape it is used in the Eastern Churches at various points of the Liturgy (e.g. in St. Chrysostom's Rite; see Brightman, pp. 354, 364, etc.) and as the last two verses of psalms, though not so invariably as with us. The second part is occasionally slightly modified and other verses are sometimes introduced between the two halves. In the Latin Rite it seems originally to have had exactly the same form as in the East. In 529 the Second Synod of Vasio (Vaison in the province of Avignon) says that the additional words, Sicut erat in principio, are used in Rome, the East, and Africa as a protest against Arianism, and orders them to be said likewise in Gaul (can. v.). As far as the East is concerned the synod is mistaken. These words have never been used in any Eastern rite and the Greeks complained of their use in the West [Walafrid Strabo (9th century), De rebus eccl., xxv]. The explanation that sicut erat in principio was meant as a denial of Arianism leads to a question whose answer is less obvious than it seems. To what do the words refer? Everyone now understands gloria as the subject of erat: "As it [the glory] was in the beginning", etc. It seems, however, that originally they were meant to refer to Filius, and that the meaning of the second part, in the West at any rate, was: "As He [the Son] was in the beginning, so is He now and so shall He be for ever." The in principio, then, is a clear allusion to the first words of the Fourth Gospel, and so the sentence is obviously directed against Arianism. There are medieval German versions in the form: "Als er war im Anfang".

The doxology in the form in which we know it has been used since about the seventh century all over Western Christendom, except in one corner. In the Mozarabic Rite the formula is: "Gloria et honor Patri et Filio et Spiritui sancto in sæcula sæculorum" (so in the Missal of this rite; see P.L., LXXXV, 109, 119, etc.). The Fourth Synod of Toledo in 633 ordered this form (can. xv). A common medieval tradition, founded on a spurious letter of St. Jerome (in the Benedictine edition, Paris, 1706, V, 415) says that Pope Damasus (366-384) introduced the Gloria Patri at the end of psalms. Cassian (died c. 435) speaks of this as a special custom of the Western Church (De instit. coen., II, viii). The use of the shorter doxology in the Latin Church is this: the two parts are always said or sung as a verse with response. They occur always at the end of psalms (when several psalms are joined together as one, as the sixty-second and sixty-sixth and again the one hundred and forty-eighth, one hundred and forty-ninth and one hundred and fiftieth at Lauds, the Gloria Patri occurs once only at the end of the group; on the other hand each group of sixteen verses of the one hundred and eighteenth psalm in the day Hours has the Gloria) except on occasions of mourning. For this reason (since the shorter doxology, like the greater one, Gloria in Excelsis Deo, in naturally a joyful chant) it is left out on the last three days of Holy Week; in the Office for the Dead its place is taken by the verses: Requiem æternam, etc., and Et lux perpetua, etc. It also occurs after canticles, except that the Benedicite has its own doxology (Benedicamus Patrem . . . Benedictus es Domine, etc. -- the only alternative one left in the Roman Rite). In the Mass it occurs after three psalms, the "Judica me" at the beginning, the fragment of the Introit-Psalm, and the "Lavabo" (omitted in Passiontide, except on feasts, and at requiem Masses). The first part only occurs in the responsoria throughout the Office, with a variable answer (the second part of the first verse) instead of "Sicut erat," the whole doxology after the "Deus in adjutorium," and in the preces at Prime; and again, this time as one verse, at the end of the invitatorium at Matins. At all these places it is left out in the Office for the Dead and at the end of Holy Week. The Gloria Patri is also constantly used in extraliturgical services, such as the Rosary. It was a common custom in the Middle Ages for preachers to end sermons with it. In some countries, Germany especially, people make the sign of the cross at the first part of the doxology, considering it as chiefly a profession of faith.

ERMELIUS, Dissertatio historica de veteri christianâ doxologia (1684); SCHMIDT, De insignibus veteribus christianis formulis (1696); A SEELEN, Commentarius ad doxologiæ solemnis Gloria Patri verba: Sicut erat in principio in his Miscellanea (1732); BONA, Rerum liturgicarum libri duo (Cologne, 1674), II, 471; THALHOFER, Handbuch der kath. Liturgik, I, 490 sq.; IDEM in Augsburger Pastoralblatt (1863), 289 sq.; RIETSCHEL, Lehrbuch der Liturgik, I, 355sq.; KRAUS, Real-Encyk., I, 377 sq.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

James Warren Doyle

Irish bishop; b. near New Ross, County Wexford, Ireland, 1786; d. at Carlow, 1834. He belonged to a family, respectable but poor, and received his early education at Clonleigh, at Rathconrogue, and later at the Augustinian College, New Ross. Shortly after 1800 he joined the Augustinian Order and was sent to Coimbra in Portugal, and there, at the university, first manifested his great intellectual powers. In the university library he read everything, Voltaire and Rousseau among the rest. As a consequence his faith became unsettled; but his vigorous intellect soon asserted itself, and subsequently he became the fearless champion of the Church in which he was born. During the French invasion he did sentry work at Coimbra, and accompanied the English to Lisbon as interpreter, and such was the impression he made at the Portuguese Court that he was offered high employment there. He declined the offer, however, and, returning to Ireland in 1808, was ordained priest the following year. Then for eight years he taught logic at the Augustinian College, New Ross. In 1817 he became professor at Carlow College, and two years later the priests of Kildare and Leighlin placed him dignissimus for the vacant see. Their choice was approved at Rome, and thus, in 1819, Doyle became bishop. At that date the effects of the Penal Laws were still visible in the conduct of the Catholics. Even the bishops, as if despairing of equality and satisfied with subjection, often allowed Protestant bigotry to assail with impunity their country and creed. This attitude of timidity and acquiescence was little to Dr. Doyle's taste, and over the signature of "J. K. L." (James, Kildare and Leighlin) he vigorously repelled an attack made on the Catholics by the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin. He also published an extremely able pamphlet on the religious and civil principles of the Irish Catholics; and a series of letters on the state of Ireland, in which the iniquities of the Church Establishment, the exactions of the landlords, the corrupt administration of justice were lashed with an unsparing hand. The clearness of style, the skilful marshaling of facts, the wide range of knowledge astonished all. And not less remarkable was his examination before two Parliamentary committees in London. Seeing his readiness and resource, the Duke of Wellington remarked that Doyle examined the committee rather than was examined by them. He joined the Catholic Association, and when O'Connell was about to contest Clare, Doyle addressed him a public letter hoping "that the God of truth and justice would be with him". After Emancipation these two great men frequently disagreed, but on the tithe question they were in accord, and Doyle's exhortation to the people to hate tithes as much as they loved justice became a battle-cry, in the tithe war. Meantime nothing could exceed the bishop's zeal in his diocese. He established confraternities, temperance societies, and parish libraries, built churches and schools, conducted retreats, and ended many abuses which had survived the penal times. He also waged unsparing and incessant war on secret societies. He died young, a martyr to faith and zeal.

E.A. D'ALTON

John Doyle

Born in Dublin, Ireland, 1797; died in London, 2 January, 1868; English portrait-painter and caricaturist. This clever artist studied under Gabrielli, and Comerford, the miniature-painter. He came to London in 1821 and started as a portrait-painter, but gave his attention to drawing caricatures in 1827 or 1828, and developed his well-known signature, "H.B.", by means of two sets of initials "J.D." placed one above the other. In 1829 he commenced his famous series of drawings which he continued to produced until 1851, caricaturing in brilliant style all the political movements of the day. His drawings differ completely from the caricatures which preceded them, notably those of Rowlandson and Gillray, inasmuch as they are marked by reticence, courtesy, and a sense of good breeding. They are extraordinarily clever and at times stinging in their bitter epigrammatic quality; but Thackeray under-estimated their power when he spoke of them as "genteel" and said that they would "only produce a smile and never a laugh". There are some six hundred of them in the British Museum, and taken altogether they form a most interesting and graphic representation of the political history of England of the time. Doyle retired from professional work seventeen years before his death. He preserved his incognito to the very last and few people were aware of the fact that the initials on the caricatures formed his signature. He produced several pencil sketches of well-known personages and made use of the sketches themselves constitute in several instances the most life-like representations of the person in question which exist.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Richard Doyle

English artist and caricaturist, b. in London, September, 1824; d. there 11 December, 1883. The second son of John Doyle, he inherited much of his father's talent and exceeded the elder Doyle in skill and in power as a draughtsman. From a very early age he amused himself with making drawings. He prepared an account of the Eglinton Tournament when he was but fifteen, and at the age of sixteen commenced his famous Journal, now preserved in the British Museum, The journal is a manuscript book containing many small sketches in pen and ink, executed with skill and brilliance, and marked by powers of observation and by a sense of humour hardly equalled and certainly not exceeded in later years, "This extraordinary work was reproduced in facsimile in 1885 with an introduction by J.H. Pollen, and is a remarkable proof of Richard Doyle's precocity as an artist. In 1843 he became a contributor to "Punch" and continued on the staff of that paper till 1850. He produced many cartoons, but his name will be especially remembered from the fact that he designed the cover for "Punch" which has continued in use down to the present time. He also wrote for "Punch" a series of articles entitled "Manners and Customes of ye Englyshe". A very devout Catholic, he resigned his position on the staff of the paper in 1850 in consequence of its hostility to what was termed "papal aggression", and devoted the remainder of his career to preparing drawings for book illustration and to painting in watercolour. His chief series of illustrations were those for "The Newcomes", "The King of the Golden River", "In Fairyland", and "The Foreign Tour of Brown, Jones and Robinson". His watercolour drawings were marked by much poetic feeling, and were executed in harmonious low-toned schemes of colour. His genius has been well described as "kindly, frolicsome, graceful, and sportive". He was full of imagination and delighted in romantic fancy, while his caricatures are exquisitely drawn, amusing and graceful, lacking perhaps the strength of his father's works but far exceeding them in charm and in quality of amusement. There are many of his drawings in the British Museum, and some of his sketch-books are in the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge.

The Month (London, March 1884); Everitt, English Caricaturists (London, 1886); Binyon, Drawings in the British Museum (London, 1900); Dobson, in Dict. Nat. Biog., s.v.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

David Paul Drach

Convert from Judaism, b. at Strasburg, 6 March, 1791; d. end of January, 1868, at Rome. Rosenthal's "Convertitenbilder" (III, 48) prefaces the autobiography of Drach with the following words: "The conversion of this learned Jewish proselyte is undoubtedly one of the most important conversions effected by the grace of God during this century in France and became the source of salvation to many of his coreligionists." This conversion, affecting one who enjoyed the highest esteem as an author and a learned rabbi, produced a most profound impression on all active and earnest minds of the rising generation, and incited them to the study of the more serious problems of life. His endeavours to lead his coreligionists to the living fountain of truth, to the acknowledgment of Jesus as the real and true Messias, crystallized in numerous writings and were blessed by God. Herein lies the net result of this scholar's conversion.

Drach received his first instruction at the hands of his father, a renowned Hebraist and Talmudic scholar, whose linguistic talents the son inherited. At the age of twelve Drach entered the first division of the Talmudic school in Edendorf near Strasburg. This course of study, lasting ordinarily for three years, he completed in one year, and entered the second division of the Talmudic school in Bischheim in the following year. He graduated in eighteen months and then matriculated in Westhofen to qualify as a teacher of the Talmud. When only sixteen years of age he accepted the position of instructor at Rappoltsweiler, remaining there three years; afterwards he followed the same profession in Colmar. Here the ambitious youth devoted himself zealously to the study of secular sciences to which he had already seriously applied himself while prosecuting his Talmudic studies. Having obtained the rather unwilling permission of his father, he went to Paris, where he received a call to a prominent position in the Central Jewish Consistory and at the same time fulfilled the duties of tutor in the household of a distinguished Jew. The marked results of his method of teaching induced even Christian families to entrust their children to his care. It was under these circumstances that he received the first impulse towards a change of his religious views which ultimately resulted in his conversion. He writes: "Stirred by the edifying examples of Catholic piety continually set before me to the furtherance of my own salvation, the tendency towards Christianity, born in earlier life, acquired such strength that I resisted no longer." He now applied himself studiously to patristic theology and specialized in the study of the Septuagint with a view towards ascertaining the truth of the unanimous reproach of the Fathers, viz. that the Jews had falsified the Hebrew text. These studies resulted in his unquestioned belief in the Divinity and Messiahship of Jesus Christ. On Maundy Thursday, 1823, he renounced Judaism in the presence of Archbishop Quélen, in Paris, was baptized the following (Holy) Saturday, and on Easter morning received his first Holy Communion and the Sacrament of Confirmation. Two daughters and an infant son were also baptized. His wife, the only member of the family who adhered stanchly to the old faith, abducted the children. They were returned, however, after two years.

After a few years Drach went to Rome, where he was appointed librarian of the Propaganda (1827), which office he held at his death. Among the many converts who trace their conversion to the influence of Drach's example are the Libermann brothers; Franz Maria Paul Libermann was especially indebted to Drach for his sound advice and active assistance in the establishment of the "Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary". Of Drach's numerous writings the following deserves particular mention: "Lettres d'un rabbin converti aux Israélites, ses frères" (Paris, 1825). He also published the "Bible de Vence", with annotations (Paris, 1827- 1833) in 27 volumes octavo. He remodelled the Hebrew-Latin Dictionary of Gesenius, and published a Catholic Hebrew-Chaldaic dictionary of the Old Testament (ed. Migne, Paris, 1848). He wrote, moreover, "Du divorce dans la synagogue" (Rome, 1840); "Harmonie entre l'église et la synagogue" (Paris, 1844); and "La Cabale des Hébreux" (Rome, 1864).

Paul Augustin Drach

Son of the preceding; born 12 August, 1817; died 29 October, 1895; canon of Notre-Dame and exegete of importance. He studied at the Propaganda College in Rome and was ordained priest there in 1846. We owe to him a large French Bible commentary (La Sainte Bible, Paris, 1869) in which he himself wrote on the Pauline Epistles (1871), the Catholic Epistles (1879), and the Apocalypse (1879).

      Rosenthal, Convertitenbilder, III, 48; Grubel in Kirchenlex., III, 2011; Hurter, Nomenclator; Pitra, Life of the Ven. Servant of God, Franz Maria Paul Libermann, Ger. tr. MÜller (Stuttgart, 1893).

N. Scheid

Drachma

(Gr. drachmé), a Greek silver coin. The Greeks derived the word from drássomai, "to grip", "to take a handful"; cf. drágma, manipulus, "a handful". Thus the term originally signified a handful of grain (Liddell and Scott; Riehm, "Handwörterbuch", Smith, "Dict. of Antiq."). But in Vigouroux, "Dict. de la Bible", the term is derived from daraq-mana, the name of a Persian coin equivalent to the Hebrew drkmwn, dárkemôn. The Persian word darag, Assyrian darku, means "degree", "division". Thus the words daraq-mana and drachma would signify a part of a mina. The darag-mana was also called a Daric because it was first struck by the emperor Darius Hystaspis. The drachma contained six oboli. It was the fourth part of a stater, the hundredth part of a mina, and the six-thousandth part of a talent. The precise value of the drachma differed at various times. The two principal standards of currency in the Grecian states were the Attic and the Æginetan. The Attic drachma had the greater circulation after the time of Alexander the Great. Its weight was about 66 grains, its value was a little less than twenty cents (nine pence, three farthings), and its size was about that of a quarter. On the one side it had the head of Minerva, and on the reverse her emblem, the owl, surrounded by a crown of laurels. The Æginetan drachma weighed about 93 grains and was equivalent to one and two-thirds Attic drachmas. It was current in the Peloponnessus (Corinth excepted, Riehm, "Handwörterb.") and in Macedonia until Alexander the Great. The drachma is mentioned in the Old Testament (II Machabees, xii, 43), when Judas sends 12,000 drachmas to Jerusalem that sacrifices may be offered for the dead. In the New Testament (Luke, xv, 8, 9), Christ used the word in the parable of the woman that has ten drachmas (D. V. "groats") and loses one.

      Riehm, Handwörterbuch; Beurlier in Vig. Dict. de la Bible, s. v. Drachme; Babington in Dict. of the Bible s. v. Mondy; Wex, Métrologie grecque et romaine (Paris, 1886).

C. Van Den Biesen

Blossius Æmilius Dracontius

A Christian poet of the fifth century. Dracontius belonged to a distinguished family of Carthage and was the pupil of a noted grammarian named Felicianus. He was called clarissimus (most illustrious), won the favour of the proconsul Pacideius, and led a prosperous life by means of inherited riches and the income of his law practice until he incurred the ill will of the Vandal king, Gunthamund. The cause of this misfortune seems to have been the expression of sentiments of Romano-Byzantine patriotism; for these utterances Dracontius suffered a long imprisonment. Nothing more is known of his history except that he was still alive when Thrasamund ascended the throne in 496.

His works are the "Romulea", three books on God (De laudibus Dei), and a poem entitled "Satisfactio". The latter two were written in prison; the first-mentioned is a collection of pieces composed at various times and written in the style of rhetorical school exercises. Thus, one of these poems represents a rich man and a poor man as enemies; as a reward for the exploits of the rich man his statue is erected in the public square and accorded the right of sanctuary. Later, in recompense for additional services, the rich man asks for the head of the poor one, whereupon the latter flees to the statue for safety and a formal process ensues. In another poem Achilles deliberates as to whether or not he shall sell the body of Hector. When Dracontius deals with themes of his own day, as in the eulogy on his former teacher, and the "Epithalamia" for two couples who were friends, his style is occasionally less conventional. The writings forming the "Romulea" contain but little suggestion of a Christian poet; on the other hand, the "Satisfactio" and the "De laudibus Dei" manifest an ardent and sometimes eloquent faith. The "Satisfactio", written about 490, was intended to be instrumental in obtaining the royal pardon; the "De laudibus Dei", produced between 486 and 496, is a recital of God's benefits. The first book of the "De laudibus Dei" has for its main contents a description of the creation; the chief theme of the second is the Incarnation and the Redemption, it also contains vehement attacks on Arianism; the third compares, by appropriate examples, the hope of the Christian who denies himself in order to love God with the cheerless prospect of the pagan who counts on no future reward. This poem, like the others, is full of ideas taken from other sources; the episodes drawn from the Bible, profane history, and mythology are as varied as the textual reminiscences of the Latin poets, both Christian and pagan. However, the excellent pupil of Felicianus was not a thorough master of Latin diction and prosody; his writings give frequent evidence in their form of the surrounding barbarism.

The collection named "Romulea" is incomplete. Probably it should also contain two small poems, one on the months and the other on the origin of the rose; perhaps, further, the "Orestis tragœdia", which is called a tragedy, though in reality it is an epic poem of some thousand verses, wherein the author follows a unique ancient version of the myth; finally, though with less certainty, the "Ægritudo Perdicæ" (Perdica's Malady). The subject of this little poem of 290 hexameters is interesting from the point of view of folk-lore. Perdica, a student of Athens, has neglected the worship of Venus and by way of revenge this goddess inspires him with a guilty love for his mother, Castalia. Perdica fails into a decline and his physicians are unable to understand his ailment, but Hippocrates, who ascertains that Perdica's heart beats more violently when Castalia approaches, recognizes the real nature of the malady. There is no remedy for the trouble and Perdica hangs himself (see Rohde, Der grischisch. Roman, p. 54). The works of Dracontius were not known in their real form until 1791 and 1873. His Christian poems were very popular in the sixth and seventh centuries. They were revised by Eugenius, Bishop of Toledo (died 657), but these revisions made great changes in the author's statements. What Eugenius failed to understand he altered; moreover, he corrected the doctrine of Dracontius. The latter had said that God deliberately created good and evil at the same time (Satisfactio, 15); Eugenius made him say that God tolerated evil. It was in this recension that both the Christian poems were known until 1791. The larger part of the secular poems of Dracontius were first published in 1873.

VOLLMER in PAULY-WISSOWA. Realencykl. d. clase. Altertumswiss. (Stuttgart, 1905), s. v. Dracontius; first edition of Christian poems in original form, AREVALO ed. (Rome, 1791), reprinted in P. L., LX; first edition of secular poems, ed. VON DUHN (Leipzig, 1873), best edition by VOLLMER in Mon. Germ. Hist. (Berlin, 1905), except for Ægritudo Perdicœ, which is edited by BÄHRENS in Poetœ latini minores (Leipzig, 1883). V, 112.

PAUL LEJAY.

Augusta Theodosia Drane

In religion MOTHER FRANCIS RAPHAEL, O.S.D.; b. at Bromley near London, in 1823; d. at Stone, Staffordshire, 19 April, 1894. Her parents were both Protestants, her father being managing partner in an East India mercantile house. Her remarkable natural gifts were developed by wide reading at a very early age. In 1837 she moved with her family to Babbicombe, Devonshire, where she read much of the early literature of the Oxford Movement. Burnet's "History of the Reformation", she declared, was the real cause of her conversion. It was not, however, till 1847 that she grew uneasy as to her religious beliefs, whereupon she consulted Keble and Pusey, but without satisfaction. The influence of Maskell, then Vicar of St. Mary Church, helped her more and she confided to him a scheme called "Ideal of a Religious Order". He told her that such an order existed in the Catholic Church, naming the Third Order of St. Dominic. This made a profound impression on her mind and gradually she was drawn to the Church. She was received at Tiverton, 3 July, 1850, and in 1852 entered the Third Order of St. Dominic at Clifton. On 8 Dec., 1853, she was professed at the new convent of Stone, Staffordshire, and was there employed in teaching and in writing various books, meanwhile making great spiritual progress. In 1860 she was appointed mistress of novices, but in 1863 became mistress of studies instead, thus obtaining more leisure for writing. In 1872 she became prioress under her friend, Mother Imelda Poole, and on the death of the latter in 1881 succeeded her as provincial (25 Nov., 1881), thus taking charge of the whole congregation and the convents of Stoke-on-Trent, Bow, and St. Mary Church. Her character was well summed up by Bishop Ullathorne, when he described her as "one of those many-sided characters who can write a book, draw a picture, rule an Order, guide other souls, superintend a building, lay out grounds, or give wise and practical advice with equal facility and success." She continued to grow in remarkable sanctity till her death, which took place a fortnight after she had ceased to be provincial.

Her works include: "The Morality of Tractarianism" (1850), published anonymously; "Catholic Legends and Stories" (1855); "Life of St. Dominic" (1857); "Knights of St. John" (1858); "Three Chancellors, Wykeham, Waynflete and More" (1859); "Historical Tales" (1862); "Tales and Traditions" (1862); "History of England for Family Use" (1864); "Christian Schools and Scholars" (1867); "Biographical Sketch of Hon. H. Dormer" (1868); "Songs in the Night" (1876); "New Utopia" (1876); "History of St. Catherine of Siena" (1880); "History of St. Dominic" (1891); "The Spirit of the Dominican Order" (1896), and some smaller pieces. She translated the "Inner Life of Père Lacordaire" (1868), edited a "Life of Mother Margaret Mary Hallahan" (1869), "Archbishop Ullathorne's Autobiography" (1891), and "Letters of Archbishop Ullathorne" (1892).

EDWIN BURTON

Interpretation of Dreams

There is in sleep something mysterious which seems, from the earliest times, to have impressed man and aroused his curiosity. What philosophy of sleep sprang from the observation of phenomenon, we do not know; but like all phenomena the causes of which are not obvious, sleep came, in the course of time, to be considered as the effect of the Divine agency and as something sacred. We should very likely see a vestige of this simple and primitive philosophy in the reverence shown at all times by the Arabs to a man sleeping.

But the mystery of sleeping is enhanced by the phenomenon of dream which accompanies it. Primitive people, unable to explain the psychology of dreaming or to discover the causes of sleep, observed that, whereas man can, when awake, control his thoughts and fancies, yet he is utterly incapable, when in sleep, either of bringing about such dreams as he might wish, or of directing and ruling those that offer themselves to his faculties; hence they were led to attribute dreams to outside and supernatural agencies. The gods, whose power was believed to manifest itself in natural effects, such as thunderstorms and earthquakes, whose message were supposed to be written by signs in the heavens, could as well send their communication to men in dreams. Hence the persuasion arose that persons favoured by frequent dreams were sacred and chosen intermediaries between the deity and man.

Far from being cast aside by advancing civilization, these ideas developed with it, and were to a certain extent even systematized, as appears in particular from the records of the ancient peoples of the East. These all took it for granted that every dream expressed a Divine message. Most dreams came unsought; but occasionally supernatural communications were solicited by "incubation". The person desirous of obtaining a prophetic dream then betook himself to the temple of the deity from whom he expected instructions, and there slept, after some ritual preparation. Among the shrines known in antiquity for vouchsafing oracles to sleeping worshippers, the temple of Aesculapius at Epidaurus, where dreams were obtained in which remedies were revealed to cure diseases, the cave of Trophonius, the temple of Serapis, and that of Hathor, near the turquoise mines of the Sinai Peninsula, are the best known. As a last means to wrest the dream from a reluctant deity, magic was also resorted to. An interesting example of magical formulae used for this purpose is contained in a Gnostic papyrus of relatively late date preserved in the Leyden Museum; it is entitled "Agathocles' Recipe for sending a Dream", and may be read in Wiedemann's Religion der alten Egypter (p.144).

The meaning of the Divine message conveyed in dreams was sometimes obvious and unmistakable, as when the facts to be known were plain revealed by the deity himself or through the ministry of some messenger. Thus Thomas IV was instructed by Ra Hormakhu in a dream to dig out of the sand the statue of the Great Sphinx, near the place where he was sleeping. In like manner the early Babylonian king, Gudea, received the command to erect the temple Erinnu to Ninib. Of this description also were the dreams recorded in the annals of King Asshurbanipal. From these documents we learn that Asshur appeared in a dream to Gyges, King of Lydia, and said to him: "Embrace the feet of Asshurbanipal, King of Assyria, and thou shalt conquer thy enemies by his name." Forthwith Gyges dispatched messengers to the Assyrian ruler to narrate this dream and pay him homage, and henceforth succeeded in conquering the Kimmerians. Another passage relates that, in the course of an expedition against Elam, as the Assyrian troops were afraid to cross the Itti River, Ishtar of Arba-ilu appeared to them in their sleep and said: "I go before Asshurbanipal, the king whom my hands have made." Encouraged by this vision, the army crossed the river ("West, As. Inscr.", vol.III; G, Smith, "Hist. Of Ashurbanipal"). The Divinely sent dream might also at times foreshow some coming event. Moreover, its meaning was not always clear and might be shrouded in symbols, or, if conveyed through oral communication, wrapped up in figures of speech. In either case, the knowledge of the significance of dream would depend on the interpretation. And as most dreams portend no clear message, the task of unfolding dream symbols and figures gradually grew into an art, more or less associated with soothsaying. Elaborate rules were laid down and handbooks compiled for the guidance of the priests in explaining the portent of the visions and symbols perceived by the inquirer in his sleep.

Many such manuals have been found in Assyria and Babylonia, the contents of which enable us to understand the principles followed in dream-interpretation. From Dan., ii,2 sqq., it would seem that the potherim or dream-interpreters, might be called upon even to discharge the perplexing task of recalling dreams forgotten by the dreamer. The instance here recorded cannot, however, be much insisted upon, as the context distinctly intimates that this task, impossible "except to the gods", yet imposed upon the Babylonian diviners by a whim of the king, was beyond their acknowledged attributions. Most of the Egyptian magic books likewise contain incantations either to procure or to explain dreams. There incantations had to be recited according to fixed cantillations, and the soothsayer's art consisted in knowing them thoroughly, copying them faithfully, and applying them properly. Side by side with this religious view of dreams, which regarded them as the expression of the will of god, there existed the superstitious view, according to which all dreams were considered as omens. Assuming "that things causally connected in thoughts are causally connected in fact" (Jevons), people blindly believed that their dreams had a bearing on their own fate, and eagerly strove to discover their significance.

Like the Eastern peoples, the Greeks and the Romans attached a religious significance to dreams. Of his belief many traces may be found in classical literature. Homer and Herodotus thought it natural that the gods should send dreams to men, even to deceive them, if need be, for the accomplishment of their higher ends (Agamemnon's dream). The same indications may be found also in the works of the dramatists (e.g. Clytemnestra's dream in the "Agamemnon" of Aeschylus.) Plato, whilst regarding it as inconceivable that a god should deceive men, admitted nevertheless that dreams may come from the gods (Tim., cc, xlvi, xlvii). Aristotle was similarly of the opinion that there is a divinatory value in dreams (De Divin, per somn., ii). The teaching o Stpocs was along the same lines. If the gods, they said, love man and are omniscient as well as all-powerful, they certainly may disclose their purposes to man in sleep. Finally, in Greece and Rome, as well as in the East, the popular views of dreams went a great deal farther and developed into superstition. It was accordance with these views, and to gratify the cravings which they created that Daldianus Artemidorus compiled his "Oneirocritica", in which rules were laid down whereby any one could interpret his own dreams.

In the light of the belief and practices of the ancient peoples, we are better able to judge the belief and practices recorded in the Bible. That God may enter into communication with man through dreams is asserted in Numbers 12:6, and still more explicitly in Job 33:14 sqq.: "God speaketh once. . . By a dream in a vision by night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, and they are sleeping in their beds: then he openeth the ears of men, and teaching instructeth them in what they are to learn." As a matter of fact, Divine revelation through dreams occurs frequently in the Old and in the New Testament. In most of the cases recorded the dream is expressly said to come from God; of this description are, e.g., the dreams of Abimelech (Gen., xx,3); of Jacob (Gen., xxviii,12;xxxi,10); of Solomon (IIIK., iii,5-15); of Nabuchodonosor (Dan., ii,19); of Daniel (Dan., vii,1); of Joseph (Matth., i,20;iii,13); of St. Paul (Acts, xxiii,11;xxvii,23), unless we should interpret these passages as referring to visions granted to the Apostle while awake. God is said to appear Himself only in a few instances, as to Abimelech, to Jacob, to Solomon, and to Daniel, if, as is generally admitted, the "Ancient of days", spoken of in this connection, should be understood to be God; in other instances He is said to speak through an angel, as in dreams narrated by St. Matthew and St. Paul. The Bible records other dreams, which, though prophetic, are not distinctly said to come from God (Gen, xxxvii,6; xl,5;xli,1; Judges, vii,13; II Mach., xv,11). It appears, however, from the circumstances and from their prophetic import, that their Divine origin cannot be doubted; at least their interpretation is declared (Gen., xl,8) to "belong to God". Accepting the historical truth of these facts, there is no reason indeed why God should not use dreams as a means of manifesting His will to man. God is omniscient and all-powerful, and He loves man; He may, therefore, in order to disclose his purposes, choose natural as well as supernatural means. Now dreaming, as a natural psycho-physiological phenomenon, has undoubtedly its laws, which, however obscure they may be to man, are established by God, and obey His bidding. But since man may be easily deluded, it is needful that God in using natural causes should supply such evidences as will make His intervention unmistakable. Sometimes these evidences are manifested to the dreamer, at other times to the interpreter, if one be necessary; but they will never fail. The analogy of the foregoing reasons with those brought forward by theologians to prove the possibility of revelation is readily perceived. In fact, there is here more than a mere analogy; for communication by dreams is but one of the many ways God may select to manifest His designs to man; there is between them a relation of species to genus, and one could not deny either without denying the possibility of a supernatural order.

All the dreams actually recorded in Holy Writ came unsought. Some scholars infer from the words of Saul (I K., xxviii,15): "God is departed from me, and would not hear me, neither by the hand of prophets, nor by dreams", that the practice of deliberately seeking supernatural dreams was not unknown in Israel. The words just quoted, however, do not necessarily imply such a meaning, but may as well be interpreted of unsought prophetic dreams. Still less can it be asserted that the Israelites would seek prophetic dreams by resorting to a well-known sanctuary and sleeping there. The two instances sometimes adduced in this connection, namely the dream of Jacob at Bethel (Gen., xxviii,12-19) and that of Solomon at Gabaon (III.K., iii,5-15), do not bear out such an affirmation. In both cases the dream far from being sought, was unexpected; moreover, with regard to the former, it is evident from the narration that Jacob was quite unaware beforehand of the holiness of the place he slept in. His inference on the next morning as to its sacredness was inspired by the object of the dream, and his conduct in this circumstance seems even to betray some fear of having unknowingly defiled it by sleeping there.

It should be concluded from the above remarks that there were no errors with regard to dreams and dream-interpretation in the minds of individual Israelites. Like their neighbours, they had a tendency to consider all dreams as omens, and attach importance to their significance. But this tendency was constantly held in check by the more enlightened and more religious part of the nation. Besides the prohibition to "observe dreams", embodied in the Law (Lev., xix,26; Deut., xviii,10), the Prophets, from the eighth century B.C. onwards, repeatedly warned the people against giving "heed to their dreams which they dream" (Jer., xxix,8). "Dreams follow many cares", says Ecclesiastes (v,2); and Ben Sirach wisely adds that "dreams have deceived many, and they have failed that put their trust in them" (Ecclus., xxxiv,7). This was, according to II Par., xxxiii,6, one of the faults which brought about the downfall of Manasses. Above all, the Israelites were warned in every manner against trusting in the pretended dreams of false prophets: "Behold, I am against the prophets that have lying dreams, saith the Lord" (Jer., xxiii,32;cf. Zach., x,2;etc). From these and other indications it appears that the religion of Israel was kept pure from superstition connected with dreams. True, a mere glance at the respective dates of the above-quoted passages suggest that the zeal of the prophets was of little avail, at least for certain classes of people. The evil opposed by them continued in vogue down to the Exile, and even after the Restoration; but it is scarcely necessary to remark how unjust it would be to hold the Jewish religion responsible for the abuses of individual persons. Neither did there exist at any time in Israel a class of diviners making it their business to interpret the dreams of their country-men; there were no potherim among the temple-officials, nor later around the synagogues. The very few dream-interpreters spoken of in the Bible, as Joseph and Daniel, were especially commissioned by God in exceptional circu mstances. Nor did they resort to natural skills or art; their interpretations were suggested to them by the Divine intellect enlightening their minds; "interpretation belongs to God", as Joseph declared to his fellow-prisoners. Undoubtedly there were among the people some soothsayers ever ready to profit by the curiosity of weaker and credulous minds; but as they possessed no authority and as they were condemned both by God and by the higher religious consciousness of the community, they practised their art in secret.

That certain dreams may be caused by God seemed to be acknowledged without controversy by the early Fathers of the Church and the ecclesiastical writers. This opinion they based mainly on Biblical authority; occasionally they appearled to the authority of classical writers. Agreeably to this doctrine, it was admitted likewise that the interpretation of supernatural dreams belongs to God who sends them, and who must manifest it either to the dreamer or to an authorized interpreter. The divine intervention in man's dreams is an exceptional occurrence; dreaming, on the contrary, is a most common fact. We may inquire, therefore, how the official guardians of Faith viewed ordinary and natural dreams. In general they repeated to the Christians the prohibitions and warnings of the Old Testament, and denounced in particular the superstitious tendency to consider dreams as omens. It may suffice in this connection to recall the names of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory the Great, whose teaching on the question at issue is clear and emphatic. A few, however, held opinions somewhat at variance with the traditional view. Among them the most noteworthy is Synesius of Cyrene (about 370-413), who is the author of a very strange treatise on dreams. Starting from the Platonic anthropological trichotomy, and from certain psychological hypotheses of Plato and Plotinus, he attributed the imagination a manifestly exaggerated role. Above all the arts of divination, the lawful use of which he did not seem to doubt, he extolled dreaming as the simplest and surest mode of prophesying. We know that he had accepted the episcopacy only on the condition that he might continue to hold certain favourite philosophic ideas; and it is reasonable to suppose that his theories on dreams were included in the compact.

Medieval theologians added to the reasonings of their predecessors a more careful, and to some extent more scientific, study of the phenomena of sleep; but they found no reason to depart from the moral principles contained in the writings of the Fathers. Suffice it here to quote St. Thomas Aquinas, who summarizes the best teaching of the Schoolmen. To the query: Is divination through dreams unlawful? -- he replies: The whole question consists in determining the cause of dreams, and examining whether the same may be the cause of future events, or at least come to the actual knowledge of them. Dreams come sometimes from internal, and sometimes from external, causes. Two kinds of internal causes influence our dreams: one animal, inasmuch as such images remain in a sleeping man's fantasy as were dwelt upon by him while awake; the other found in the body: it is indeed a well-known fact that the actual disposition of the body causes a reaction on the fantasy. Now it is self-evidence that neither of these causes has any influence on individual future events. Our dreams may likewise be the effects of a twofold external cause. This is corporeal when exterior agencies, such as the atmospheric conditions or others, act on the imagination of the sleeper. Finally dreams may be caused by spiritual agents, such as God, directly, or indirectly through his angels, and the devil. It is easy to conclude thence what chances there are to know the future from dreams, and when divination will be lawful or unlawful (II-II:95:6).

Modern theologians, whilst profiting by the progress of psychological research, continue to admit the possibility of dreams supernatural in their origin, and consequently the possibility of dream-interpretation depending on supernatural communications. As to ordinary dreams, they readily grant that, because the imaginative faculties of man acquire sometimes a keenness which they do not possess otherwise, it is possible in such cases to conjecture with a certain degree of probability some future events; but in all other cases, by far the most common, it is useless and illogical to attempt any interpretation. As a matter of fact dreams are now -- we speak of civilized peoples -- seldom heeded; only very ignorant and superstitious persons ponder over the "dictionaries of dreams" and the "keys to the interpretation of dreams" once so much in favour. "As idle as a dream" has become a proverb expressive of the popular mind on the subject, and indicating sufficiently that there is little need nowadays to revive the laws and canons enacted in past ages against divination through dreams.

BOUCHE-LECLERCQ, Histoire de la Divination (Paris, 1879); LENORMANT, la divination et la science des presages chez les Chaldeens (Paris, 1875); LEHMANN, Aberglaube und Zauberei (Stuttgart, 1898); SCHANZ in Kirhenlex., s.v. Traumdeuterei; LADD, Doctrine of Sacred Scripture (New York, 1883); REYNOLDS, Natural History of Immortality (1891).

CHARLES L. SOUVAY

Jeremias Drechsel

(Also Drexelius or Drexel.)

Ascetic writer, b. at Augsburg, 15 August, 1581; entered the Society of Jesus 27 July, 1598; d. at Munich, 19 April, 1638. He was professor of humanities and rhetoric at Augsburg and Dillengen, and for twenty-three years court preacher to the Elector of Bavaria. His writings enjoyed an immense popularity. Chief among them was his "Considerationes de Æternitate" (Munich, 1620), of which there were nine editions; in addition to these Leyser printed 3200 copies in Latin and 4200 in German. It was also translated into English (Cambridge, 1632; Oxford, 1661; London, 1710 and 1844) and into Polish, French, and Italian. His "Zodiacus Christianus" or "The Twelve Signs of Predestination" (Munich, 1622) is another famous book but there seems to have been an edition anterior to this; in 1642 eight editions had already been issued and it was translated in several European languages. "The Guardian Angel's Clock" was first issued at Munich, 1622, and went through seven editions in twenty years; it was also translated extensively. "Nicetas seu Triumphata conscientia" (Munich, 1624) was dedicated to the sodalists of a dozen or more cities which he names on the title page; "Trismegistus" was printed in the same year and place; "Heliotropium" or "Conformity of the Human Will with the Divine Will" came out in 1627; "Death the Messenger of Eternity" also bears the date 1627. His fancy for odd titles shows itself in other books also. Thus there are the "Gymnasium of Patience"; "Orbis Phaëton, hoc est de universis vitiis Linguæ". The only work he wrote in German was entitled "Tugendtspregel oder Klainodtschatz" (Munich, 1636). He has also a "Certamen Poeticum"; Rosæ selectissimarum virtutum"; "Rhetorica Coelestis"; "Gazophyacium Christi". There are in all thirty-four such books. Other works are "Res bellicæ expeditionis Maximiliani" (1620), and some odes and sermons.

De Backer, Bibl. de la c. de J., 1646-55; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., III, 181 sqq.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Dresden

The capital of the Kingdom of Saxony and the residence of the royal family, is situated on both sides of the Elbe, which is here crossed by five bridges, and is surrounded by pleasing heights. Including the suburbs which now form a part of it, the city contained (1 December, 1905) 516,996 inhabitants, of whom 462,108 were Evangelical Lutherans, 2885 Evangelical Reformed, 44,079 Catholics, 3514 Jews, etc. Dresden is the residence of the vicar Apostolic for Saxony and is the seat of the Catholic ecclesiastical consistory and of the vicarial court. In 1907 there were in Dresden 24 ecclesiastics, including the vicar Apostolic, who is a titular bishop, 7 rectors, 4 court preachers, and 1 military chaplain. Dresden has 6 Catholic parish churches, of which 2 are only chapels, 1 garrison church, which is also used for Protestant worship, the church attached to St. Joseph's Institute, built in 1746, and 6 chapels. The most important of these edifices is the court church, one of the finest Rococo structures of Germany. It was built by the Italian master-builder, Gaetano Chiaveri, in the years 1739-51, for Frederick Augustus II (1733-63). The church has a finely painted ceiling, a high altar with altar-painting by Raphael Mengs, and valuable silver ornamentation; since 1823 the members of the royal family have been buried in the crypt. Among the other churches should be mentioned, the parish church of Dresden-Neustadt, built, 1852-53, in Romanesque style and containing finely painted windows, and the chapel in the royal palace.

The Catholic schools of Dresden consist of a pro-gymnasium with 4 ecclesiastical teachers and about 70 scholars, 1 middle-class school with nearly 300 scholars, and 5 district schools with 3300 pupils. For girls there are also St. Joseph's Institute, founded in 1746 by Maria Josepha, wife of King Augustus III, to give poor Catholic girls food, clothing and instruction, and the institution for noble young ladies, founded in 1761 by Freiherr von Burkersroda, in which Catholic young women of noble birth receive a home and an education. As houses of male orders are forbidden throughout Saxony, Dresden has only convents of female congregations; these are: 2 houses of Grey Sisters who have charge of a hospital; St. Joseph's Institute, a home for servants, 2 kitchens for the poor, etc.; 1 convent of the Sisters of St. Charles Borromeo who conduct the Amalia home and a boarding home for working-women. Among the Catholic societies of Dresden should be mentioned: the Catholic Press Association, the Teachers' Association, 2 workingmen's societies, the People's Association (Volksverein) of Catholic Germany, the journeymen's society (Gesellenverein) which carries on a boarding home, the Merchants' Association, 3 associations for youths, 2 societies of St. Charles Borromeo, the Catholic Casino, and 20 religious societies and brotherhoods. The only Catholic daily newspaper for Dresden and Saxony is the "Saechsische Volkszeitung."

Dresden was originally a village of the Sorbs, who in the sixth century settled on both sides of the Elbe. In the tenth century the territory was conquered by the Germans, and the Diocese of Meissen was erected in 968 for the conversion of the pagan Sorbs. The first church of Dresden, the church of Our Lady, was built about 1080. Towards the end of the twelfth century the Germans made a settlement, not far from the Sorbs, which is first mentioned in a deed of 1206 and is spoken of as a city as early as 1216. This new settlement, which gradually absorbed the other, received many privileges and rights from Margrave Heinrich the Illustrious (1230-88). The edifices still existing, which were founded in the time of this ruler, are: the St. Maternus infirmary, the St. Batholomaeus infirmary, the Franciscan monastery, the church of which forms part of the present Protestant church of St. Sophia, and the church of the Holy Cross, which in 1234 received a piece of the True Cross and consequently became a great resort for pilgrims. After the death of Heinrich, besides the Margrave of Meissen, both the Bishop of Meissen and the monastery of Hersfeld laid claim to Dresden; in 1319 the city finally came into the possession of the margraves. Margrave Wilhelm I made Dresden his place of residence; he enlarged the castle, granted the rights of a city to the old settlement called Alt-Dresden (Old Dresden) on the right bank of the Elbe, and founded there in 1404 a monastery of Hermits of St. Augustine. The intention of this ruler to establish a cathedral chapter in Dresden was not, however, carried out. In 1449 the city was besieged by the Hussites and badly damaged. Among the most remarkable events of the following period was the presence at Dresden of St. John Capistran, who in 1452 preached repentance here with great success.

When the lands of the House of Wettin were divided in 1485 between the two brothers, Albrecht and Ernst, Dresden was included in the possessions of Albrecht, to whose successors it has ever since belonged. Soon after this, in 1491, a great fire laid waste the city, burning to the ground the church of the Holy Cross and 270 houses, but the town recovered quickly. The city developed rapidly under Duke George the Bearded (1500-39), who was a strong opponent of the religious innovations of Luther. Soon after his death, however, his brother Heinrich introduced the Reformation into Dresden (1539). The monasteries of the Franciscans and Augustinians were suppressed; twenty-seven altars of the church of the Holy Cross were destroyed and the paintings were removed; the vessels of gold and silver were taken from the churches by the council, and the holding of Catholic church services was soon after this entirely forbidden.

During the reign of Duke Maurice, who attained the electoral dignity, the two towns were consolidated in 1550; in the time of Maurice and his successors Dresden became one of the most beautiful cities of Germany. After the sufferings of the Thirty Years War Dresden was adorned by its rulers, Johann Georg, Augustus the Strong, and Frederick Augustus II, with fine edifices and numerous treasures of art, so that it competed with Paris in its attractions. The Seven Years War brought intense misery to the city, the population of which fell from 63,000 to the fourth part of this number. Scarcely had the place recovered when the Napoleonic Wars with their enormous burdens, to which hunger and disease were added, again brought the greatest suffering on the city. After the Wars of Liberation the development of the city steadily progressed until it was interrupted again by the Revolution of 1849 which led to the erection of barricades and to bloody strife. Since then there has been a constant and rapid growth of the city, which rivals the other great centres of the German Empire in elegance and beauty and in the activity of its industries and commerce.

After the introduction of the Reformation into Dresden Catholicism could not exist openly. Catholics were forbidden to settle in it even as late as 1680; the few Catholics who lived there could only hear Mass in the chapel of the imperial embassy. This oppressed condition of the Catholics was not much improved when Augustus the Strong in 1697 became a convert; he gave the chapel of the hunting castle Moritzburg for Catholic worship, and in 1708 the court church of the Holy Trinity was consecrated; but public church services were still forbidden to Catholics. It was not until the Peace of Posen, 11 December, 1806, that the Catholics of Saxony were granted the same freedom of worship as the Lutherans and that the Catholic and Protestant subjects of the king received the same civil and political rights. Since this date the Catholic Church in Dresden has increased, though slowly, as Saxony, notwithstanding the Catholicism of the reigning family, is strongly Protestant and has little toleration for the Church; thus, for example, the founding of monasteries is forbidden by the Constitution of 1831. The losses of the Church in Dresden annually exceed the conversions more than tenfold.

J.E. Richter, Litteratur der Landes- und Volkskunde des Koenigreichs Sachsen, which contains a full bibliography (1889); V Supplements (1892-1905); Reformationsgesch. der Residenzstadt Dresden (Meissen, 1827); Urkundenbuch der Staedte Dresden und Pirna in Codex diplomaticus Saxoniae regiae, Pt. II, Vol. V (Leipzig, 1875); DIBELIUS, Die Einfuehrung der Reformation in Dresden, (Dresden, 1889); O. RICHTER, Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsgesch. der Stadt Dresden (Dresden, 1885-91); IDEM, Atlas zur Gesch. Dresdens (Dresden, 1898); IDEM, Gesch. der Stadt Dresden (Dresden, 1900), I; IDEM, Gesch. der Stadt Dresden, 1871-1902 (Dresden, 1903); GURLITT, Beschreibende Darstellung der Bau- und Kunstdenkmaeler Sachsens (Dresden, 1900-03), Pts. XXI-XXIII; IDEM, Dresden (Dresden, 1907); Handbuch der Wohltaetigkeit und Wohlfahrtspflege in Dresden (Dresden, 1906). Periodicals. -- Mitteilungen des Vereins fuer Gesch. Dresdens (Dresden) XX Pts. to 1908; Dresdener Geschichtsblaetter (Dresden), XVI vols. to 1908; St. Benno-Kalender (Dresden), LVII vols. to 1908.

JOSEPH LINS

Lebrecht Blücher Dreves

Poet, b. at Hamburg, Germany, 12 September, 1816; d. at Feldkirch, 19 Dec., 1870. The famous Prussian General Blucher was his baptismal sponsor, whence his name. At fifteen he wrote German and Latin poems faultless in rhyme and metre. Four years later he submitted a good-sized volume of poems to the critical judgment of A. von Chamisso and Gustav Schwab, and both expressed favourable opinions. This was followed shortly by another volume entitled "Lyrische Anklange" (Lyrical Melodies), and although these "Melodies" were grafted on the music of his favourites, Chamisso, Uhland, Heine, Rückert, Schwab, and others, they were not devoid of a sweetness all their own. His studies in jurisprudence, prosecuted during the three succeeding years and rewarded by the degree of doctor of laws summâ cum laude, failed to extinguish the love of his favourite study of poetry. Another volume, entitled "Vigilien" (Vigils), fulfilled the earlier promises of this child-phenomenon. About this time, however, the seamy side of life presented itself to him, trouble growing apace with financial difficulties in the young lawyer's family. Hitherto, although a strict Protestant, his entire religion had been summed up in the word poetry. Impending poverty destroyed this rather roseate view. His mental and bodily troubles, however, were more or less dissipated by his reception into the Catholic church on Candlemas Day, 1846. A subsequent appointment as notary raised him above immediate want. It was during these darker periods that he was most prolific as an author. In 1843 he had already published anonymously a third volume of poems "Schlichte Lieder" (Unpretentious Songs) embodying his battle-songs, "Lieder eines Hanseaten". Previous to this, when unhampered by the dread of poverty, he had written (1868) the two-act comedy "Der Lebensretter" (The Life-Saver) inscribing it: "A manuscript printed for (improvised) private theatricals".

The change of view involved in his conversion brought him two advantages, a loftier conception of his literary work and an enlarged circle of friends. His "Lieder der Kirche" (Church Hymns) paved his way to becoming a model translator of hymns (2d ed., 1868). He also dedicated his virile pen to the cause of religion in his native town by writing a "History of the Catholic Congregations in Hamburg and Altona". He likewise translated the "Nachtigallenlied" by the Pseudo-Bonaventura and St. Rembert's life of St. Ansgar, Apostle of the North. He undertook the thankless task of editing (1867) the important sources of the history of his native city in the "Annuae Missionis Hamburgensis 1589-1781". About this time he revised and republished his own poetical works. This work was made easy for him by the advice and aid of the poet von Eichendorff who had become his warm friend. Meantime he had become the father of a happy family, and to secure for his promising son a good education he determined to remove to Feldkirch in the Vorarlberg. To compensate for the loss of his friend von Eichendorff he gained a new one, the poet Father Gall Morel. The most distinguished of his children is his son, Dr. G. Dreves, editor of the "Analecta hymnica medii aevi", a vast collection of medieval hymnology, which has already reached its fiftieth volume.

N. SCHEID

The Drevet Family

The Drevets were the leading portrait engravers of France for over a hundred years. Their fame began with Pierre, and was sustained by his son, Pierre-Imbert, and by his nephew, Claude.

Pierre Drevet

Pierre Drevet, the Elder, b. at Loire in the Lyonnais in 1663; d. in Paris, 1738, was the son of Estienne Drevet, a man of excellent family, and began his studies with Germain Audran at Lyons, continuing them with Gérard Audran in Paris. So rapid was his progress, so quickly did he imbibe and assimilate knowledge, and with such precision and delicacy did he manage the graver, that in 1696 he was made court engraver. In 1707 he was admitted to membership in the Académie des Beaux-Arts, his reception picture being an engraving of Robert de Cotte.

Rigaud's portraits were in high favour at the end of the seventeenth century and Drevet was the first to encounter and surmount the difficulties of translating into black and white the natural appearance of texture and materials which the brilliant oils readily presented. He was an excellent draughtsman, and he treated flesh and fabrics, the flash of jewels and the shimmer of steel, with painter-like realism, surpassing all his predecessors in these effects. With all his elegance of detail he produced an harmonious ensemble, combining artistic feeling with skilful technic. Although his work with the burin was like that of the great Nanteuil, he attained a style of his own. Previous engravers sacrificed much to make the head prominent, but Drevet made everything salient, though never violently so. Always engraving after oil-paintings, Drevet was at times uneven, but this was because the originals were uneven. Orders poured in upon him faster than he could fill them, and throughout his life he had command of every important work produced in France. His engravings were mainly the portraits of distinguished people. Among his many superb plates a portrait of Colbert (1700) marks the acme of his art; and next in point of excellence come the portraits of Louis XIV and Louis XV, both after Rigaud. Other celebrated works of his are a Crucifixion, after Coypel, and a portrait of Charles II of England. During the last years of his life Drevet worked with his son and they produced plates together.

Pierre-Imbert Drevet

Pierre-Imbert Drevet, called the Younger Pierre, was born in Paris, 1697; died there, 1739. His father, the elder Drevet, gave him such assiduous instruction that at the age of thirteen he produced a superb little plate which indicated his future eminence. At first he engraved after Lebrun, but he soon developed a style of his own, spontaneous, sincere, and brilliant. Under his facile, sure, and soft graver every detail was rendered, every shade of colour and every variety of texture. The result was always an harmonious unit. He was his father's constant companion and worked with unwearying patience with him. In 1723 Pierre-Imbert finished his portrait of Bossuet after Rigaud, "perhaps the finest of all the engraved portraits of France" (Lippman). In 1724 the portrait of Cardinal Dubois was engraved. Both of these are treated broadly and freely, show magnificent handling of draperies, and possess exquisite finish. The great plate of Adrienne Lecouvreur (1730) and that of Samuel Bernard are by many authorities ranked with the Bossuet. For Bernard's portrait Rigaud himself made the drawing, a most unusual event in eighteenth-century engraving. Besides his masterly portraits, Pierre-Imbert produced many religious and historical plates, chiefly of Coypel. A sunstroke (1726) resulted in intermittent imbecility, and the talented and hardworking master — the last of the pure-line men — had thirteen years of such madness before his death. He kept on engraving, however, until the end. He was a member of the Académie de Peinture and the king assigned him apartments in the Louvre. Among his pupils were François and Jacques Chéreau and Simon Vallée.

The following are among his principal works: "Presentation of the Virgin", after Le Brun; "Presentation in the Temple", after L. Boullogne; portraits of the Archbishop of Cambrai (after Vivien); and René Pucelle, his last work, after Rigaud.

Claude Drevet

A French engraver, b. at Lyons, 1705; d. in Paris, 1782. He was a nephew and pupil of Pierre the Elder and at first followed the traditions of the two Pierres, forming about him a coterie of engravers who endeavoured to keep alive their great traditions. Later he became very hard and precise with the graver, and his work lost all its artistic and painter-like quality, everything being sacrificed for a brilliant technic. Nevertheless, many of his plates possess great charm and delicacy. Claude seemed indifferent to his art and produced but little compared with the other members of the family. When Pierre-Imbert died, his rooms in the Louvre were given to Claude, who proceeded to squander nearly all the money left him by his uncle and his cousin.

He engraved portraits of Henri Oswald, Cardinal d'Auvergne, after Rigaud, and of De Vintimille, Archbishop of Paris, also after Rigaud.

FIRMIN-DIDOT, Les Drevet (Paris, 1876); PAWLOWSKY, Catalogue raisonné; DILKE, French Engravers and Draughtsmen of the XVIII Century (London, 1902); LIPPMAN, Engraving and Etching (New York, 1906); PERNETTY, Les Lyonnais dignes de mémoire, II, 139.

LEIGH HUNT

Francis Anthony Drexel

Banker, b. at Philadelphia, U.S.A., 20 June, 1824; d. there 15 Feb., 1885. He was the oldest son of Francis Martin Drexel, a Tyrolese by birth, and by profession a portrait-painter and musician, who in 1837 turned his attention to finance, and founded the house of Drexel & Co. in Philadelphia with connexions with the firms of J. S. Morgan & Co. of New York, and Drexel, Harjes & Co. of Paris. Associated with him were his sons Francis Anthony, Anthony Joseph, and Joseph William. Francis Anthony began his financial career at the age of thirteen, and at his father's death in 1863 became the senior member of the firm, and was recognized as one of Amnerica's foremost financiers. The house of Drexel & Co. was in the public estimation unalterably associated with the strictest integrity and the most broadminded liberality. At critical periods it came generously to the support of the public credit. Francis A. Drexel's growing fortune did not alienate him from religion or harden his heart against the appeals of charity. He remained to the end poor in spirit, and regarded his vast wealth merely as a Divinely lent instrument for doing good. In his exercises of piety and his copious distribution of charities, he was ably seconded by his second wife, Emma Bouvier Drexel, who died before him. His children by his first wife, who was Hannah J. Langstroth, were Elizabeth, who died 26 September, 1890, and was the wife of Walter George Smith, of Philadelphia, and Katherine, who entered religion and founded the congregation of the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament for Indians and Coloured People (q.v.). Another daughter, Louise, wife of Edward Morrell, was the only child of his second marriage. In his will Mr. Drexel followed the Biblical injunction of bequeathing a tithe ($1,500,000) of his great estate to religious and charitable purposes, with the further proviso that in case his daughters should leave no issue, the entire estate should be distributed among the institutions specified in the will. His daughters continued to walk in the footsteps of their father. Among their own benefactions, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Morrell founded the St. Francis Industrial School at Eddington, Pennsylvania. The Francis A. Drexel Chair of Moral Theology in the Catholic University of America was founded by his daughters in honour of Mr. Drexel.

James F. Loughlin

Johann Sebastian von Drey

A professor of theology at the University of Tübingen, born 16 Oct., 1777, at Killingen, in the parish of Röhlingen, in the then ecclesiastical principality of Ellwangen; died 19 Feb., 1853. The parish priest of Röhlingen, an ex-Jesuit, noting the boy's talents, instructed him in the elements of Latin, and persuaded his parents to send him, in 1787, in spite of their extreme poverty, to the gymnasium of Ellwangen. There he lived partly on the charity of the townspeople and partly by tutoring, especially in Latin, mathematics, and physics. He studied theology, 1797-1799, at Augsburg; after 1799 he lived in the diocesan seminary at Pfaffenhausen and was ordained in the summer of 1801. During his five years as assistant in his native place, Drey studied the then paramount philosophy of Kant, Fichte, and Schelling, and the philosophical erudition which he acquired in this study appears clearly in his scientific works. His position, from 1806, as professor of philosophy of religion, mathematics, and physics in the Catholic academy of Rottweil, formed a good preparation for his subsequent academical career. When in 1812 King Frederick I of Würtemberg founded the University of Ellwangen as a Catholic national university for his recently acquired Catholic territory, Drey was called to lecture there on dogmatics, history of dogma, apologetics, and introduction to theology. There he published two Latin dissertations: "Observata quædam ad illustrandam Justini M. de regno millenario sententiam" (1814), and "Dissertatio historico-theologica originem et vicissitudinem exomologeseos in ecclesiâ. catholicâ ex documentis ecclesiasticis illustrans" (1815), the latter of which was denounced to Rome, but without serious consequences for its author, at least for the time being.

When King William I (1817) incorporated the University of Ellwangen with the old national University of Tübingen as its Catholic faculty of theology, Drey with his colleagues, Gratz and Herbst, joined the staff of the new school and founded (1819), together with them and his new colleague, Hirscher, the "Theologische Quartalschrift" of Tübingen, still flourishing; he took a prominent part in its publication and wrote for it a number of essays and reviews. In the same year he published: "Kurze Einleitung in das Studium der Theologie mit Rücksicht auf den wissenschaftlichen Standpunkt und das katholische System". An effort to make Drey first bishop of the newly founded Diocese of Rottenburg failed, among other reasons because of the distrust with which he was regarded in Rome owing to his above-named work on confession. Somewhat as a recompense the first position at the cathedral was reserved for him, which however, he never filled. In 1832 appeared his "Neue Untersuchungen über die Konstitutionen und Kanones der Apostel", a work of such thoroughness that only recent investigations, especially those of von Funk, have gone beyond it. After convalescing from a severe illness, be was relieved from his office as teacher of dogmatic theology (1838). Just then his principal work, in three volumes, appeared: "Die Apologetik als wissenschaftliche Nachweisung der Göttlichkeit des Christentums in seiner Erscheinung" (1838-1847). Still comparatively robust, though well advanced in years, Drey was pensioned in 1846, almost against his will; he continued, however, to write for Wetzer and Welte's "Kirchenlexikon" and for the "Theologische Quartalschrift" of Tübingen. With Möhler, Drey was the founder of the so-called Catholic School of Tübingen. Like Möhler, Hefele, and von Funk, he was a truly critical historian. But Drey also gave to the systematic theology of this school its peculiar stamp, equi-distinct from Traditionalism and Rationalism, recognizing on the one hand the objective facts in the history of Revelation and the tradition from generation to generation, maintaining on the other the rights of our natural reason and of philosophical speculation, with all due loyalty to dogma. Kuhn and Schanz faithfully followed in the path marked out by Drey.

Theologische Quartalschrift, XXXV (1853), 340 sqq, LXXX (1898), 18 sq.

JOHANN BAPTIST SÄGMÜLLER.

Diocese of Dromore

(DROMORENSIS, and in ancient documents DRUMORENSIS)

Dromore is one of the eight suffragans of Armagh, Ireland. It includes portions of the counties of Down, Armagh, and Antrim, and contains eighteen parishes, of which two, Newry and Clonallon, are mensal parishes. It takes its name from Dromore (Druim Mor, great ridge), a small town in the northwest of County Down, sixty-three miles north of Dublin, twenty-five miles east of Armagh, and fourteen miles south-west of Belfast, which is built on the same river, the Lagan. The See of Dromore was founded in the sixth century by St. Colman (called also Mocholmoc), one of the many holy men (more than a hundred) bearing that name in the calendars of Irish saints. From a prophecy said to have been uttered by St. Patrick, sixty years before, Archbishop Healy ("Life and Writings of St. Patrick", p. 494) infers that St. Patrick claimed no immediate spiritual jurisdiction over the territory of Iveagh which forms mainly the Diocese of Dromore, but willed that territory to be reserved for a bishop of the native race of Dal-Araide — namely, St. Colman, who founded his see there about the year 514, some sixty years after St. Patrick founded the See of Armagh. Dromore has had its own independent jurisdiction ever since. The old cathedral of Dromore, which had been taken by the Protestants, was burnt down by the Irish insurgents in 1641, and rebuilt by Bishop Taylor twenty years later; but it has been far surpassed by the Catholic church recently erected. The seat of the cathedral, however, was transferred some two hundred years ago to Newry, the largest town of County Down, and a place of great historical interest, situated at the head of Carlingford Lough. In this town, when the severity of the Penal Laws began to relax, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, the Catholics built in a retired suburb a very plain church which is still in use; but just before Catholic Emancipation an edifice worthy of the name of cathedral was begun in 1825 and completed by Dr. Michael Blake (1833-1860) who had been Vicar-General of Dublin and the restorer of the Irish College at Rome. This cathedral was greatly enlarged and beautified by Bishop Henry O'Neill, who succeeded Bishop McGivern in 1901.

Under Dr. McGivern's predecessor, Dr. John Pius Leahy, O.P. (1860-1890), a Dominican priory was founded on the Armagh side of Newry, and a very handsome church erected. The Poor Clares, who went to Newry from Harold's Cross, Dublin, in 1830, were for many years the only nuns north of the Boyne. The Sisters of Mercy founded a convent at Newry in 1855, and have now flourishing establishments in Lurgan, Rostrevor, and Warrenpoint. There is a large diocesan college at Violet Hill near Newry which is under the patronage of St. Colman. To this patron saint of the diocese and its first bishop, besides the church at Dromore already referred to, are also dedicated the parish churches at Tullylish, Kilvarlin, in the parish of Magheralin, and Barnmeen near Rathfriland in the parish of Drumgath. Few ecclesiastical antiquities have survived the ravages of time, war, and heresy. Abbey Yard in Newry marks the site of the Cistercian abbey founded in the year 1144 by St. Bernard's friend, St. Malachy O'Morgair, and endowed in 1157 by Maurice O'Loughlin, King of All Ireland. It is called in the annals Monasterium de Viridi Ligno — a name given to Newry from the yew-tree said to have been planted there by St. Patrick, the Irish name being Niubar (and sometimes Newrkintragh, "the yew at the head of the strand") which is latinized Ivorium or Nevoracum, but more commonly as above Viride Lignum. There are the ruins of an old church half a mile east of Hilltown. In the adjoining parish of Kilbroney (church of St. Bronach, a virgin saint of the district) half a mile north-east of Rostrevor is a graveyard with the venerable ruins of a church, an ancient stone cross, and a little to the west St. Brigid's well. Imbedded in a tree in this graveyard, a very antique bell was found about a hundred years ago and is now carefully preserved.

The first Protestant Bishop of Dromore was John Tod, on whom it was bestowed in commendam in 1606, while he was at the same time Bishop of Down and Connor. It was an unfortunate beginning; for the Protestant historian, Sir James Ware, says Tod was degraded for incontinence and poisoned himself in prison in London. Two of his successors distinguished themselves more creditably: Jeremy Taylor, who was bishop of these three dioceses from 1661 to 1667, an eloquent preacher and a writer of genius, and Thomas Percy, Bishop of Dromore from 1782 to 1811, whose "Reliques of Ancient Poetry" had a great and enduring influence on English literature.

There are 18 parishes, 42 churches, and 53 priests, a diocesan seminary and a convent of Dominicans at Newry; also 5 convents of Sisters of Mercy, one of Poor Clares, and a college of the Christian Brothers (Newry). The Catholic population is (1908), 43,014; non-Catholic, 71,187.

O'HANLON, Lives of the Irish Saints (Dublin, s. d.), VI, 224; WARE-HARRIS, Antiquities of Ireland (Dublin, 1739-45); MAZIERE BRADY, Episcopal Succession in England, Scotland, and Ireland (Rome, 1876), I, 296; ARCHDALL, Monasticon Hibernicum, ed. MORAN (Dublin, 1873), I, 285; HEALY, Life and Writings of St. Patrick (Dublin, 1905), 324, 494; REEVES, Down, Connor, and Dromore (Dublin, 1847), 303; O'LAVERTY, Bishops of Down and Connor (Dublin, 1895), 300.

MATTHEW RUSSELL.

St. Drostan

(DRUSTAN, DUSTAN, THROSTAN)

A Scottish abbot who flourished about A.D. 600. All that is known of him is found in the "Breviarium Aberdonense" and in the "Book of Deir", a ninth-century MS. now in the University Library of Cambridge, but these two accounts do not agree in every particular. He appears to have belonged to the royal family of the Scoti, his father's name being Cosgrach. Showing signs of a religious vocation he was entrusted at an early age to the care of St. Columba, who trained him and gave him the monastic habit. He accompanied that saint when he visited Aberdour (Aberdeen) in Buchan. The Pietish ruler of that country gave them the site of Deir, fourteen miles farther inland, where they established a monastery, and when St. Columba returned to Iona he left St. Drostan there as abbot of the new foundation. On the death of the Abbot of Dalquhongale (Holywood) some few years later, St. Drostan was chosen to succeed him. Afterwards, feeling called to a life of greater seclusion, he resigned his abbacy, went farther north, and became a hermit at Glenesk. Here his sanctity attracted the poor and needy, and many miracles are ascribed to him, including the restoration of sight to a priest named Symon. After his death his relics were transferred to Arberdour and honourably preserved there. The "Breviary of Aberdeen" celebrates his feast on 15 December. The monastery of Deir, which had fallen into decay, was rebuilt for Cistercian monks in 1213 and so continued until the Reformation.

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Clemens August von Droste-Vischering

Archbishop of Cologne, born 21 Jan., 1773, at Münster, Germany; died 19 Oct., 1845, in the same city. Besides attending the University of Münster, he had as private tutor the well-known church historian Theodore Katerkamp (died 1834). At an early age he was introduced into the circle of learned men that gathered around Baron von Fürstenberg and the pious and refined Princess Amelia Von Gallitzin, where he imbibed the thoroughly Catholic principles which characterized him while Archbishop of Cologne. After completing his studies he began, in June, 1796, an extensive educational journey under the direction of Katerkamp, through Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, returning to Münster in Aug., 1797. The following year, on 14 May, he was ordained priest by his brother Caspar Maximilian, then Auxiliary Bishop of Münster. In accordance with the wish of the aged Baron von Fürstenberg, Vicar-General and Administrator of the Diocese of Münster, the cathedral chapter elected Clemens August as his coadjutor on 18 Jan., 1807, and when Fürstenberg resigned six months later, Clemens August became his successor. As administrator he founded in 1808 an independent congregation of Sisters of Mercy, the so-called Klemens-Schwestern, who, though practically confined to the Diocese of Münster, numbered 81 houses and 1126 members in 1904. When in 1813 Münster became part of Napoleon's monarchy, the emperor appointed Baron von Spiegel as Bishop of Münster without the knowledge of the pope, but after Napoleon's fall the pope restored Clemens August to his former office in March, 1815. Under Prussian rule the administrator repeatedly came into conflict with the Government on account of his attitude towards mixed marriages and the supervision of theological studies. When by an agreement between the Holy See and the Prussian Government the dioceses of Prussia were again supplied with bishops, Clemens August, who was not persona grata to the Prussian Government, withdrew from public life and devoted himself to works of piety and charity. He remained in seclusion even after being consecrated Auxiliary Bishop of Münster with the titular See of Calama in 1827.

After the death of Baron von Spiegel, the incumbent of the metropolitan See of Cologne, the Prussian Government, to the surprise of Catholics and Protestants alike, desired Clemens August as his successor. This unexpected move on the part of the Government was intended to conciliate the Catholic nobility of Westphalia and Rhenish Prussia as well as the Catholic clergy and laity, who began to lose confidence in the fairmindedness of the Government and justly protested against the open favouritism shown to Protestants in civil and ecclesiastical affairs. The cathedral chapter of Cologne, which had become accustomed to act as a passive instrument in the hands of the Government, elected Clemens August as Archbishop of Cologne on 1 Dec., 1835. He received the papal confirmation on 1 Feb., 1836, and was solemnly enthroned by his brother, Maximilian, Bishop of Münster, on 29 May. Soon after this he came into conflict with the adherents of Hermes (died 1831), whose doctrines (see HERMES AND HERMESIANISM) had been condemned by Pope Gregory XVI on 26 Sept., 1835. When many professors at the University of Bonn refused to submit to the papal Bull, Clemens August refused the imprimatur to their theological magazine, forbade the students of theology to attend their lectures, and drew up a list of anti-Hermesian theses to which all candidates for sacerdotal ordination and all pastors who wished to be transferred to new parishes were obliged to swear adherence. The Government was angered because the archbishop had enforced the papal Bull without the royal approbation, but gave him to understand that it would allow him free scope in this affair, provided he would accede to its demands concerning mixed marriages. Before Clemens August became archbishop he was asked by an agent of the Government whether, if he should be set over a diocese, he would keep in force the agreement regarding mixed marriages, which was made "in accordance with the papal Brief of 25 March, 1830", between Archbishop von Spiegel and Minister Bunsen on 19 June, 1834. Clemens August did not then know in what this agreement consisted, and misled by the words "in accordance with the papal Brief", answered in the affirmative. After becoming archbishop he discovered that the agreement in question, far from being in accordance with the papal Brief, was in some essential points in direct opposition to it. The papal Brief forbade Catholic priests to celebrate mixed marriages unless the Catholic training of the children was guaranteed, while in the agreement between von Spiegel and Bunsen no such guarantee was required. Under these circumstances it was the plain duty of the archbishop to be guided by the papal Brief, and all attempts of the Government to the contrary were futile. His conscientious devotion to duty finally caused the Government to have recourse to the most drastic measures.

Advised by Minister Bunsen, Frederick William III ordered the arrest of the archbishop. The order was carried out in all haste and secrecy on the evening of 20 Nov., 1837, and Clemens August was transported as a criminal to the fortress of Minden. If the Government thought it could overawe the Catholics of Prussia by thus trampling under foot the religious liberty of its subjects, it speedily discovered its mistake. The Bishops of Münster and Paderborn, fired by the example of Clemens August, recalled the assent they had formerly given to the agreement; while Martin von Dunin, the Archbishop of Gnesen and Posen, was imprisoned at Kolberg for the same offence that had sent Clemens August to Minden. In an Allocution of 10 Dec., 1837, Pope Gregory XVI praised the course of the Archbishop of Cologne and solemnly protested against the action of the Government. The slanderous "Darlegung", or exposé, in which the Government attempted to defend its course by accusing the archbishop of treason, was refuted by Joseph Görres in his great apologetical work "Athanasius", and a declaration of the true state of affairs was published at Rome by order of the pope. The Government saw its mistake and the archbishop was set free on 22 April, 1839. He was permitted to retain the title of Archbishop of Cologne, but, in order to uphold the authority of the State in the public eye, was prevailed upon to select a coadjutor in the person of Johann von Geissel (q. v.), Bishop of Speyer, who henceforth directed the affairs of the archdiocese. The slanderous accusations of the above-mentioned "Darlegung" were publicly retracted by Frederick William IV, who had meanwhile succeeded Lo the throne. In 1844 the archbishop went to Rome, where he was most kindly received by the pope and the Curia. The cardinalate, which was offered him by the pope, he refused with thanks and returned to Münster in October. Clemens August is the author of a few ascetical and ecclesiastico-political works. The most important is an exposition of the rights of Church and State entitled "Ueber den Frieden unter der Kirche und den Staaten", published at Münster in 1843.

BRÜCK, Geschichte der kath. Kirche in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert (Münster, 1903), II, 298 sqq.; KAPPEN, Clemens August, Erzbischof von Köln (Münster, 1897); MUTH in Deutschlands Episcopat in Lebensbildern (Würzburg, 1875), III, no. 5.

MICHAEL OTT.

Druidism

The etymology of this word from the Greek drous, "oak", has been a favorite one since the time of Pliny the Elder; according to this the druids would be the priests of the god or gods identified with the oak. It is true that the oak plays an important part as the sacred tree in the ancient cult of the Aryans of Europe, and this etymology is helped out by the Welsh word for druid, viz. derwydd. But there is a difficulty in equating the synonymous Irish draoi and Welsh derwydd.

Probably the best-substantiated derivation of the word is from the root vid, "to know", and the intensive prefix dru. According to this etymology, the druids would be the "very wise and learned ones". But this, like the others, is merely a conjecture, and it has been surmised that the word as well as the institution was not of Celtic origin.

Although the druids are mentioned with more or less fullness of account by a score of ancient writers, the information to be derived from their statements is very meagre, and very little of it is at first hand. Even Caesar, who probably came more in contact with the druids than any other writer, does not seem to speak of the druids of his time in particular, but of the druids in general. With the ancient writers the word druid had two meanings; in the stricter sense it meant the teachers of moral philosophy and science; in the wider sense it included the priests, diviners, judges, teachers, physicians, astronomers, and philosophers of Gaul. They formed a class apart and kept the people, who were far inferior to them in culture, in subjection. They were regarded as the most just of men, and disputes both public and private were referred to them for settlement. Thus their influence was much more a social than a religious one, in spite of the common opinion that they were exclusively a priestly class or Gaulish clergy. They enjoyed certain privileges, such as exemption from military service and the payment of taxes; and the ancient authors are unanimous in speaking of the great honours which were shown them.

Above all, the druids were the educators of the nobility. Their instruction was very varied and extensive. It consisted of a large number of verses learned by heart, and we are told that sometimes twenty years were required to complete the course of study. They held that their learning should not be consigned to writing. They must have had a considerable oral literature of sacred songs, formulae of prayers, rules of divination and magic, but all of this lore not a verse has come down to us. Either in their own language or in the form of translation, nor is there even a legend that we can call with certitude druidic. Pomponius Mela is the first author who says that their instruction was secret and carried on in caves and forests. It is commonly believed that the druids were the stubborn champions of Gaulish liberty and that they took a direct part in the government of the nation, but this is an hypothesis which, however probable, is not supported, for the early period at least, by any text or by the statement of any ancient author.

"The principal point of their doctrine", says Caesar, "is that the soul does not die and that after death it passes from one body into another." But, as is well known, the belief in the immortality of the soul was not peculiar to the teachings of the philosophers of ancient Gaul. Just what was the nature of that second life in which they believed is not quite clear. Some of the Greek authors, struck by the analogy of this doctrine with that of Pythagoras, believed that the druids had borrowed it from the Greek philosopher or one of his disciples. The practice of human sacrifice, which has often been imputed to the druids, is now known to have been a survival of a pre-druidic custom, although some members of the druidic corporation not only took part in, but presided at, these ceremonies. Nor has it been proved that the druids had gods of their own or had introduced any new divinity or rites into Gaul, with the exception perhaps of the Dispater, who, according to Caesar, was regarded by the druids as the head of the nation, and who may have owed his origin to their belief. The druids, in addition to teaching, which was their most important occupation, seem to have been content to preside over the traditional religious ceremonies and to have acted as intermediaries between the gods, such as they found them, and men. It is certain that they had a philosophy, but it is very unlikely that their doctrines had penetrated into the great mass of the population.

Although the only positive information we possess on the druids is to the effect that their institution existed in Gaul and Britain between the years 53 B.C. and A.D. 77, there is evidence to show that it must have existed from a much earlier time and lasted longer than the limits fixed by these dates. It seems reasonable to suppose that the influence of the druids was already at its decline when Caesar made his campaigns in Gaul, and that to them was due the civilization of Gaul in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. We may affirm that references to the druids and signs of the existence of their institution, in the germ at least, are found which would date them as early as the third century B.C. With the Roman conquest of Gaul the druids lost all their jurisdiction, druidism suffered a great decay, and there is no reason to believe that it survived long after A.D. 77, the date of the last mention of the druids as still in existence. The opening of the schools of Marseilles, Bordeaux, and Lyons put an end to their usefulness as teachers of moral philosophy; and if some of them remained scattered here and there in Gaul, most of them were obliged to emigrate to Britain. The Emperors Tiberius and Claudius abolished certain practices in the cult of the druids, their organization, and their assemblies, but their disappearance was gradual and due as much to the romanization of the land as to any political measure or act of violence or persecution on the part of Rome. Yet there can be no doubt that Rome feared the druids as teachers of the Gallo-Roman youth and judges of trials. In Gaul in the third century of the Christian Era there is mention of women who predicted the future and were known as druidesses, but they were merely sorcerers, and we are not to conclude from the name they bore that druidism was still in existence at that late date. According to Caesar, it was a tradition in Gaul in his time that the druids were of British origin and that it was to Great Britain that they went to make a thorough study of their doctrine, but the authors of antiquity throw very little light on the institution and practices of druidism in the island of Britain.

Our information concerning the druids of Ireland is drawn from what the Christian hagiographers have written of them and what can be gathered from the casual references to them in the epic literature of Ireland. We have only fragmentary notices of the matter of their teachings, but it is clear that there were the most striking resemblances between the druids of Ireland and those of Gaul. In both lands they appear as magicians, diviners, physicians, and teachers, and not as the representatives of a certain religion. In the saga tales of Ireland they are most often found in the service of kings, who employed them as advisers because of their power in magic. In the exercise of this they made use of wands of yew, upon which they wrote in a secret character called ogham. This was called their "keys of wisdom". In Ireland, as in Gaul, they enjoyed a high reputation for learning, and some Irish druids held a rank even higher than that of the king. But they were not exempt from military service nor do they seem to have formed a corporation as in Gaul. In the earliest Christian literature of Ireland the druids are represented a the bitterest opponents of Christianity, but even the Christians of the time seem to have believed in their supernatural power of prophecy and magic. The principal thesis in M. Alexandre Bertrand's book on the religion of the Gauls is that druidism was not an isolated institution in antiquity, without analogy, but that its parallel is to be looked for in the lamaseries which still survive in Tatary and Tibet. He maintains that great druidic communities flourished in Gaul, Britain, and Ireland many centuries before the Christian Era, and that these were the models and the beginnings of the abbeys of the Western monks. In this way he would explain the literary and scientific superiority of the monasteries of Ireland and Wales in the early Middle Ages. However ingenious and attractive this hypothesis may be, it is not supported by any historical documents, and many negative arguments might be brought to bear against it.

RHYS, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by Celtic Heathendom in Hibbert Lectures (London, 1886); ANWYL, Celtic Religion in Pre-Christian Times (London, 1906); BERTRAND, La Religion des Gaulois (Paris, 1897); D'ARBOIS DE JUBAINVILLE, Cours de Litterature celtique (Paris, 1883), I, 83-240; DOTTIN, La Religion des Celtes (Paris, 1904).

JOSEPH DUNN

Gabriel Druillettes

(Or DREUILLETS)

Missionary, b. in France, 29 September, 1610; d. at Quebec, 8 April, 1681. Druillettes entered the Society of Jesus at Toulouse, 28 July, 1629, and went to Canada in 1643. After studying the Algonquin tongue, he accompanied the Indians on their winter hunting expeditions, sharing in all their privations. Parkman calls attention to the extraordinary piety of those Montagnais, who were mostly Christians, as well as to the great sufferings undergone by the missionary. On the same day that Jogues was sent to the Mohawks, 26 August, 1646, Druillettes was given a mission among the Abnaki, on the Kennebec. He ascended the Chaudière, reached what is now Moosehead Lake by portage, and then entered the Kennebec. Continuing down the river he arrived at the English post of Coussinoc, now Augusta, where he met the agent, John Winslow, who became his life-long friend. From Coussinoc he journeyed on until he reached the sea and then travelled along the coast as far as the Penobscot, where he was welcomed by the Capuchins who had established a mission there. Druillettes was the first white man to make this remarkable journey from the St. Lawrence. Retracing his steps, he established a mission on the Kennebec about a league above Coussinoc. Subsequently it grew into the famous Norridgework, where Father Rasla was slain. He returned to Quebec in June, but as the Capuchins considered that the entire district of Maine was under their jurisdiction, the Jesuits resolved to abandon the mission. In 1648, however, both the Capuchins and Abnaki asked Druillettes to return. But he did not resume his work until 1650, and when he left Quebec the second time it was as envoy of the Government to negotiate a treaty at Boston with the Puritans of New England for commercial purposes, as well as for mutual protection against the Iroquois. He was received with great kindness by the principal men in the English colonies, notably by the famous missionary John Eliot, and by Major-General Gibbons, who kept him at his house. Druillettes speaks in the highest terms of Endicott. Shea is of the opinion that Father Druillettes said Mass privately in Boston, in December, 1650. He returned to the Kennebec in January, and in the following June was again sent as French commissioner to attend a meeting of the representatives of the English colonists at New Haven, September, 1651. Failing to induce the deputies to make a treaty, he resumed his labours among the Abnaki, returning finally to Quebec in March, 1652.

After this date he laboured among the Montagnais Indians, and at Sillery and Three Rivers. In 1658 he embarked with Father Garreau on an Indian flotilla to go to the Ottawas near Lake Superior; but the party was attacked near Montreal, Garreau was slain, and the expedition seems to have been abandoned. Druillettes and Father Dablon then attempted to reach the North Sea. In 1660 they paddled up the Saguenay, reached Lake St. John and continued their course up a tributary, which they called the River of the Blessed Sacrament, finally coming to Kekouba, which was twenty-nine days from Tadousac. As the Indians refused to go any farther north and the country offered no prospect of a mission the travellers returned to Quebec. In 1670 he was at Sault Sainte Marie and was one of those who participated with Allouez and Marquette in the famous "taking possession" of the country by Saint-Lusson in May, 1671. He laboured chiefly among the Mississauga, besides attending to other dependent missions towards Green Bay. Druillettes was regarded as a man of great sanctity, and miracles are attributed to him. He was remarkable for his knowledge of the Indian languages, and Marquette, before going West, was sent to study Algonquin under his direction at Three Rivers. His work among the Indians extended over a period of thirty-eight years. There is a great diversity in the spelling of his name; Charlevoix writes it Dreuillets. He is also called Droullettes and even Brouillettes.

T.J. CAMPBELL

John C. Drumgoole

Priest and philanthropist, b. at Granard, Co. Longford, Ireland, 15 August, 1816; d. in New York, 28 March, 1888. He emigrated to New York in 1824, and to support his widowed mother worked as a shoemaker. His piety and zeal attracted the notice of the pastor of St. Mary's church who made him the sexton of that parish in 1844. He had always cherished an aspiration to study for the priesthood, and to provide the means for this and to maintain his mother he conducted a small book-store. In 1863 he left St. Mary's to carry out his intention of entering the seminary; after making preliminary studies at St. Francis Xavier's and St John's Colleges, he was admitted as an ecclesiastical student at the seminary of Our Lady of Angels, Suspension Bridge, New York, in 1865. He was ordained priest there 24 May, 1869, and assigned as an assistant at St. Mary's where he had formerly been sexton. From here he was appointed to take charge of a lodging-house for boys which the St. Vincent de Paul Society had opened some time previously. The caring for homeless and destitute children appealed to him specially, and he volunteered to take up the direction of this work which had languished until then. Under his sympathetic and prudent management success was at once assured. He started St. Joseph's Union for the support of the institution and soon extended its membership all over the world. The first location of the lodging-house became inadequate to the needs and he purchased land at Great Jones Street and Lafayette Place and built an imposing structure which was opened as the Mission of the Immaculate Virgin in December, 1881. In the following year a farm was bought on Staten Island, and Mount Loretto, the country-place of the Mission, where trade schools and other buildings were built, their care being given to a community of Franciscan sisters. These buildings cost more than a million dollars and were large enough to care for 2000 destitute children annually; at his death, which occurred after a very short illness, Father Drumgoole left them entirely free of debt. He accomplished all this without any great personal talents apart from a simplicity and earnestness of charity that won him friends everywhere. He had singular success in managing boys, and, like his great prototype, Don Bosco, he believed and said that it was all due to his rule: "in looking after the interests of the child it is necessary to cultivate the heart."

MALLICK J. FITZPATRICK.

Ven. Robert Drury

Martyr (1567-1607), was born of a good Buckinghamshire family and was received into the English College at Reims, 1 April, 1588. On 17 September, 1590, he was sent to the new College at Valladolid; here he finished his studies, was ordained priest and returned to England in 1593. He laboured chiefly in London, where his learning and virtue made him much respected among his brethren. He was one of the appellants against the archpriest Blackwell, and his name is affixed to the appeal of 17 November, 1600, dated from the prison at Wisbech. An invitation from the Government to these priests to acknowledge their allegiance and duty to the queen (dated 5 November, 1602) led to the famous loyal address of 31 January, 1603, drawn up by Dr. William Bishop, and signed by thirteen of the leading priests, including the two martyrs, Drury and Cadwallader. In this address they acknowledged the queen as their lawful sovereign, repudiated the claim of the pope to release them from their duty of allegiance to her, and expressed their abhorrence of the forcible attempts already made to restore the Catholic religion and their determination to reveal any further conspiracies against the Government which should come to their knowledge. In return they ingenuously pleaded that as they were ready to render to Caesar the things that were Caesar's, so they might be permitted to yield to the successor of Peter that obedience which Peter himself might have claimed under the commission of Christ, and so to distinguish between their several duties and obligations as to be ready on the one hand "to spend their blood in defence of her Majesty", but on the other "rather to lose their lives than infringe the lawful authority of Christ's Catholic Church". This bold repudiation of the pope's deposing power was condemned by the theological faculty of Louvain; bit it is noteworthy that its author was selected by the pope himself as the very man in whose person he would revive the episcopal authority in England; Dr. William Bishop being nominated Bishop of Chalcedon and first vicar Apostolic in that country in 1623.

The results of the address were disappointing; Elizabeth died within three months of its signature, and James I soon proved that he would not be satisfied with any purely civil allegiance. He thirsted for spiritual authority, and, with the assistance of an apostate Jesuit, a new oath of allegiance was drawn up, which in its subtlety was designed to trouble the conscience of Catholics and divide them on the lawfulness of taking it. It was imposed 5 July, 1606, and about this time Drury was arrested. He was condemned for his priesthood, but was offered his life if he would take the new oath. A letter from Father Persons, S.J., against its lawfulness was found on him. The oath declared that the "damnable doctrine" of the deposing power was "impious and heretical", and it was condemned by Pope Paul V, 22 September, 1606, "as containing many things contrary to the Faith and Salvation". This brief, however, was suppressed by the archpriest, and Drury probably did not know of it. But he felt that his conscience would not permit him to take the oath, and he died a martyr at Tyburn, 26 February, 1606-7. A curious contemporary account of his martyrdom, entitled "A true Report of the Arraignment . . . of a Popish Priest named Robert Drewrie" (London, 1607), which has been reprinted in the "Harleian Miscellany", calls him a Benedictine, and says he wore his monastic habit at the execution. But this "habit" as described proves to be the cassock and cap work by the secular clergy. The writer adds, "There were certain papers shown at Tyburn which had been found about him, of a very dangerous and traitorous nature, and among them also was his Benedictine faculty under seal, expressing what power and authority he had from the pope to make men, women, and children here of his order; what indulgence and pardons he could grant them", etc. He may have been a confrater or oblate of the order.

BEDE CAMM.

Drusilla

Daughter of Herod Agrippa I, was six years of age at the time of her father's death at Caesarea, A.D. 44. She had already been betrothed to Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus, King of Commagene. Herod had stipulated that Epiphanes should embrace the Jewish religion. The prince finally refused to abide by his promise to do so, and the brother of Drusilla, Herod Agrippa II, gave her in marriage to Azizus, Kind of Emesa, who, in order to obtain her hand, consented to be circumcised. It was shortly after this marriage, it would appear, that Felix, the Roman procurator of Judea, met the beautiful young queen. This meeting very likely took place at the court of Herod Agrippa II, for we can gather from Josephus that Berenice, the elder sister, whose jealousy the Jewish historian mentions as an explanation of Drusilla's conduct, lived with her brother at this time. Felix was struck by the great beauty of Drusilla, and determined to make her his wife. In order to persuade a Jewess, who had shown attachment to her religion, to be divorced from her husband and marry a pagan, the unscrupulous governor had recourse to the arts of a Jewish magician from Cyprus whose name, according to some manuscripts of Josephus, was Atomos, according to other, Simon. The ill-advised Drusilla was persuaded to accede to the solicitations of Felix. She was about twenty-two years of age when she appeared at the side of the latter, during St. Paul's captivity at Caesarea (Acts, xxiv, 24-25). Like her husband, she must have listened with terror as the Apostle "treated of justice, and chastity and of the judgment to come". It is said that during the reign of Titus a son of Felix and Drusilla perished together with his wife in the eruption of Vesuvius. But there is no information about the life of Drusilla herself after the scene described in Acts.

Josephus, Antiq. Jud in Fl. Josephi Opera, ed. Niese (Berlin, 1887-1895), XIX, ix, 1-2; vii 1-2; Schurer, Gesch. des judichen Volkes (Leipzig, 1901), I, 555, 557, 564, 573, 577; Beurlier in Vig., Dict. de la Bible, s.v. Drusille.

W.S. REILLY

Drusipara

A titular see in Thracia Prima. Nothing is known of the ancient history of this town, which, according to Ptolemy, III, II, 7, and Itiner. Anton., was situated on the route from Adrianople to Byzantium. Under Maximian, St. Alexander suffered martyrdom there (Acta Sanct., May, III, 15). In the time of Emperor Mauritius the city was captured by the Khakan of the Avars, who burned the church and destroyed the relics of the martyr (Theophyl. Simocatta, VII, 14, 15). Drusipara was at first an episcopal see, suffragan of Heraclia (Lequien, Or. Christ., 1, 1131, etc.); in the eighth and ninth centuries it became an independent archbishopric, which must have been suppressed during the Bulgarian invasions. In two "Notitiae Episcopatuum" Mesene appears as a later name for Drusipara; at Mesene in 1453 died the wife of the famous Grand Duke Notaras (Ducas, Hist. Byz., 42). Mesene is today a little village, with 500 inhabitants, east of Karishtiran in the vilayet of Adrianople.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Jean Druys

(Lat. DRUSIUS)

Thirtieth Abbot of Parc near Louvain, Belgium, b. at Cumptich, near Tirlemont; d. 25 March, 1635. He studied successively at St-Trond, Liege, Namur, and Louvain, and entered the Norbertine Abbey of Parc in 1587. Ordained priest, he was sent to the Norbertine College at Louvain and obtained his licentiate in 1595. Recalled to the abbey, he was made sub-prior and professor of theology to the young religious at the abbey, chaplain to Abbot Ambrose Loots at the Refuge, which the abbey possessed at Brussels during the troublous times at the end of the sixteenth century, and at the death of Abbot Loots his successor. Four years later he was appointed vicar-general to the Abbot-General of Prémontré, and was later named by Archduke Albert a member of the States of Brabant and of his private council. The University of Louvain having suffered much from the religious and political disturbances of the time, Druys was appointed, with a layman, visitor to the university, with full power to reform abuses, a task which was not completed until 1617. He was also made visitor to the University of Douai (1616) and to the Celestine monastery at Héverlé. In addition he restored and enlarged his own abbey, which had suffered much from the vandalism of the soldiers, and provided better educational advantages for his religious. At the general chapter held at Prémontré in 1628, Abbot Druys was commissioned to revise the statutes of the order and conform them to the prescriptions of the Council of Trent, a revision which was approved at the general chapter of 1630. Druys prefixed a preface, "Praefatio ad omnes candidissimi et canonici ordinis religiosos", which Foppens characterizes as longam, piam, eruditam. He had a tree of the saints of the order made by the skilful engraver, C. Mallery. He also published a small work entitled "Exhortatio ad candidi ordinis religiosos". Abbot Druys was deputed by the general chapter of 1630 to bring back several abbeys of Spain into union and observance, but was unsuccessful. While on this mission he conferred with Phillip IV on the sad state of affairs in Brabant. A ring presented to him by this monarch is preserved at Parc, as is also a letter from Henrietta Maria, Queen of England.

MARTIN GEUDENS.

Gaspar Druzbicki

Ascetic writer, b. at Sierady in Poland, 1589; entered the Society of Jesus, 20 August 1609; d. at Posen, 2 April, 1662. After some years of teaching, he became master of novices, and subsequently rector of colleges of Kalisz, Ostrog, and Posen. He was twice provincial and was in the seventh and tenth general congregations of the order. Almost all his works are posthumous and have been drawn from his "Opera Ascetica". It has been found impossible to arrange them in chronological order. Among them are a brief defense of the Society against a writer in the Cracow Academy (1632); books of meditations on the Life and Passion of Christ, some in Polish, some in Latin; "The Tribunal of Conscience", translated in Latin for the "Quarterly Series" edited by the English Jesuits (London, 1885); "Provisiones Secetutis" (Ingolstadt, 1732). There are also "Considerations for Every Sunday and Feast of the Year" (Kalisz, 1679); "The Sacred Heart, the Goal of Hearts" (Angers, 1885), translated for the English "Messenger", probably by Father Dignam (1890); "Exercises for Novices" (Prague, 1890); "The Religious Vows" (Posen, 1690), translated into Spanish and found in the Library of Guadalajara, Mexico; "Solid Jesuit Virtue", (Prague, 1696); "Lapis Lydius" (Mainz, 1875), translated into French by the Redemptorist Father Ratti (Paris, 1886) and into German by the Benedictine Gütrabber (Salzberg, 1740). A complete list of Druzbicki's works occupies twelve columns in Sommervogel.

De Backer, Bibl. de la c. de J., I, 1659-64, III, 2149; Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., III. 212.

T.J. CAMPBELL

Druzes

Small Mohammedan sect in Syria, notorious for their opposition to the Marionites, a Catholic people dwelling on the slopes of the Lebanon. Their name is derived as a plural form of Dorazy, the proper name of a Persian at the court of El Hakim in Egypt (about 1015). They subsequently repudiated all connection with this Mohammed Ibn Ismail el-Dorazy, and styled themselves Unitarians, or Muwahhedin, on account of the emphasis they lay on the unity of God. Their history begins with the arrival of Dorazy in the Wady el-Teim, after his flight from Egypt. This Persian had had the audacity to read to a large multitude in a mosque a book tending to prove that El Hakim, the mad Fatimite caliph, was an incarnation of God. Escaping from the crowd, who were enraged at this blasphemy, he fled to the valley between Hermon and the Southern Lebanon, and with the support of his master preached his doctrine to these mountaineers, already given to Batenite doctrine and therefore predisposed to accept a further incarnation of the Deity. He was soon superseded by another Persian, Hamzeh Ibn Ahmed El Hady, who became the real founder of the sect and the author of its sacred books. After the assassination of El Hakim, Hamzeh wrote a treatise to prove that El Hakim had not really died but only disappeared to test the faith of his followers. This disappearance and ultimate return of El Hakim are the cardinal points of the Druze faith to-day. The sacred books of the Druzes, successfully hidden from the world for eight centuries, have since the middle of the last century found their way into European libraries. They are written in Arabic and effect the style of the Koran. They consist of six volumes containing 111 treatises of a controversial character or explanatory epistles to individual persons. Each book takes its name from its first treatise. Their speculations strongly reflect their Persian origin.

The Druze doctrine concerning God is characterized by its abstraction from all Divine attributes; these, it declares, would imply limitation in the Supreme Being. God, however, manifested Himself first in the Universal Mind, then in the Universal Soul, and again in the Word. These three form the first great manifestation. The second great manifestation began with the residence of the Universal mind in Adam for a thousand years; after which Enoch took his place, and in turn was followed by the seven ministers, Noe, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Ibn Ishmail; the seventh is unknown. God appeared ten times in human form, for the last time in El Hakim. The Druzes teach a distinction between Jesus, the son of Joseph, and the Christ. Christ instructed Jesus, but finally Jesus disobeyed Christ and was crucified in consequence. Christ, who was concealed under the form of one of the disciples of Jesus, stole the body of Jesus from the grave, and gave out the report that Christ had risen, in order that the true Druzes might be concealed for awhile in the religion of Jesus. The Druzes are firm believers in the transmigration of souls, and this transmigration will never end; after the Judgment Day death will continue, but it will be painless for the saved, who will live to the age of 120 years, and whose souls will forthwith be reborn and re-enter a life of peace and pleasure. The Druze are unshakably convinced that the whole of China is peopled with adherents of their religion. The Judgment Day, or rather the golden age for the Druzes, will be at hand when the Christians wax greater than the Mohammedans, some nine hundred years after the disappearance of El Hakim. Then the Christians, aided by the King of Abyssinia, a sort of Antichrist named "The Antagonist", will march against the Caaba in Mecca. The hosts of Christ and Mohammed will meet, but only to be both overcome by 2,500,000 Chinese Druzes. Moslems and Christians will both be reduced to everlasting slavery, and the Unitarians will reign forever. The Druze religion contains several moral precepts: veracity, love of the brethren, forsaking of idolatry, repudiation of devils, acknowledgement of God's unity at all times, secrecy in religion, and resignation to the will of God.

The Druzes are divided into two main classes: the Ukkal, or initiated, and the Juhhal, or uninitiated; among the former the Iwayid profess the strictest Druze principles. They meet on Thursday evenings for worship, which consists almost exclusively in reading their sacred books. They often comply with the outward observances of Islam and even make pretense of being Mohammedans, but they are officially designated as unbelievers. They live mostly ion the Lebanon, but are also found in the Hauran and in the districts near Damascus; their total number is estimated at 100,000 or a few thousand more. Encouraged by Turkish authorities, the Druze in 1860 attacked the Catholic Marionites, and are said to have massacred some then thousand of them. The massacres were stayed mainly through English and French intervention.

Wortabet, Researchers into the Religions of Syria (London, 1860); Churchill, the Druze and Marionites (London, 1862); Socin in Realencyk.für prof. Theol. (Leipzig, 1898), s.v. Drusen; Neumann, Das Volk des Drusen (Vienna, 1878).

J.P. ARENDZEN

Dryburgh Abbey

A monastery belonging to the canons of the Premonstratensian Order (Norbertine or White Canons), situated four miles south-east of Melrose, Scotland. It was founded about 1150 by Hugo de Morville, Constable of Scotland, who brought a community from Alnwick in Northumberland. The situation is beautiful, a wooded promontory, around three sides of which sweeps the River Tweed. The church was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. The monastery was burnt to the ground by Edward II, who encamped in the grounds when retreating from Scotland in 1322; but it was restored under Robert I, who himself contributed largely. At the Dissolution it was created a temporal lordship, and conferred by James VI on the Earl of Mar, who made it over to his third son, ancestor of the Earl of Buchan. It has again come into the hands of the last-named family in recent times by purchase.

The general style of the existing remains of Dryburgh is Early English, with some older (Norman) work. Of the church only the western gable, the ends of the transept, and part of the choir remain; but considerable portions of the conventual buildings have been preserved, including the refectory, with a beautiful rose window. James Stuart, of the Darnley family, is buried under the high altar; and various members of the Buchan family lie in one of the chapels. The principal object of interest to visitors is the tomb of Sir Walter Scott, in St. Mary's Aisle (part of the north transept). Sir Walter's maternal ancestors, the Haliburtons, at one time owned Dryburgh. His wife and eldest son are also interred here.

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR.

John Dryden

Poet, dramatist, critic, and translator; b. 9 August, 1631, at Oldwinkle All Saints, Northamptonshire, England; d. at London, 30 April, 1700. He was the son of Erasmus Dryden (or Driden) and Mary Pickering, daughter of the Rev. Henry Pickering. Erasmus Dryden was the son of Sir Erasmus Dryden, and was a justice of the peace under Cromwell. On both sides Dryden's family were of the Parliamentary party. He received his early education as a king's scholar at Westminster and while there his first published work appeared. This was an elegy contributed in 1649 to the "Lachrymæ Musarum", a collection of tributes in memory of Henry, Lord Hastings. He entered Trinity College, Cambridge, 18 May, 1650, being elected to a scholarship on 2 October. He graduated as Bachelor of Arts, January, 1653-4, and after inheriting from his father a small estate worth £60 annually, he returned to Cambridge, living there until 1655. The "Heroic Stanzas" on the death of Oliver Cromwell, his first important work (1658), are smooth and vigorous, and while laudatory, are not meanly so. There is no attack on royalty and no mention of Cromwell's religion. Dryden always was in favour of authority and of peace from civil strife, and consequently when disorders broke out upon Cromwell's death, he, with the rest of the nation, welcomed the return of Charles II. He celebrated the king's return with his poem of "Astræa Redux" (1660), in which he already showed his mastery of the rhymed couplet. Then followed his poems on the "Coronation" (1661); "To Lord Clarendon" (1662); "To Dr. Charleton" (1663); "To the Duchess of York" (1665); and "Annus Mirabilis" (1667). His great prose "Essay on Dramatick Poesie" appeared in 1668. Meantime, in 1662, Dryden had been elected to the Royal Society, and on 1 December, 1663, he was married to Lady Elizabeth Howard, eldest daughter of the Earl of Berkshire.

In 1662 he began his dramatic career with "The Wild Gallant", a comedy of humours, influenced by Spanish sources. In 1663 appeared "The Rival Ladies", a tragi-comedy, also from a Spanish model. To this Dryden prefixed the first of the famous prefaces in which he laid down his principles of dramatic criticism. "The Indian Emperor", a heroic play, his first original drama, appeared in 1665. In 1667 he produced "The Maiden Queen", a comedy in which some blank verse us seen alongside of the rhymed couplet and prose; "Sir Martin Marall", a prose comedy based on "L'Etourdi" of Molière; and an adaptation of "The Tempest" with Davenant. "The Mock Astrologer" (1668) was an imitation of "Le feint astrologue" of Thomas Corneille, influenced by Molière's "Dépit amoureux". About this time Dryden entered into an agreement with the King's Theatre Company. According to this he was to produce three plays a year, for which he was to receive one and one-quarter shares out of a total of twelve and three-quarters. In the winter of 1668-9, "Tyrannic Love, or the Royal Martyr", a rhymed heroic tragedy, was played, and in 1670 his greatest heroic tragedy, the first and second parts of "Almanzor and Almahide, or the Conquest of Granada".

Dryden was given the degree of M. A. by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1668; in 1670 he was made poet laureate and royal historiographer, which brought him an annual income of £200. In 1671 he was satirized in "The Rehearsal", a play written by Buckingham, Butler, and others. "Marriage à la Mode", a comedy in prose and rhyme, was played in 1672, as well as "The Assignation, or Love in a Nunnery", a prose comedy, interspersed with a little blank verse. "Amboyna" (1673) was a prose tragedy on the subject of the Dutch outrages, and "The State of Innocence" (1674) was an unsuccessful attempt to treat the theme of Paradise Lost. "Aurengzebe" (1676) is a rhymed tragedy in which the run-on lines show a tendency toward blank verse, which becomes triumphant in the next play, "All for Love" (1678). This is Dryden's masterpiece, a play based on the story of Anthony and Cleopatra which he wrote to satisfy his own standards. It is a play worthy of comparison with Shakespeare's "Anthony and Cleopatra", surpassing it in unity of time and motive, and in the part of Ventidius adding one of the great characters of the English drama. "Limberham" (1678), a prose comedy, was unsuccessful and was withdrawn after three nights. After the production of "Oedipus", a tragedy in blank verse written in collaboration with Lee in 1679, Dryden seems to have quarrelled with the King's Company, and his next play, "Troilus and Cressida", (1679), an adaptation in blank verse of Shakespeare's play, was produced by the Duke's Company. With the "Spanish Friar" (1681) he closed for a time his dramatic career. He had in the meantime suffered as well as profited by his fame. The Earl of Rochester, suspecting that Dryden had aided Lord Mulgrave in his attack of Rochester in the "Essay on Satire", caused Dryden to be beaten by hired ruffians as he passed through Rose Street, Covent Garden, while returning from Will's coffee house to his own house in Gerrard Street. It is characteristic of the unfair attitude taken by Dryden's enemies that this cowardly assault was held by them to reflect upon his character.

In November, 1681, Dryden began, in the first part of "Absalom and Achitophel", the series of satires in the rhymed couplet which placed him at the head of English satirical poets. "Absalom and Achitophel" was the most important literary expression of the party which prevented the exclusion of the Duke of York from the succession to the throne. It is also one of the greatest of English satires, especially in its portraiture of the characters of the Duke of Monmouth and the Earl of Shaftesbury, both of whom the author has represented allegorically in the title of the poem. Then followed, in March, 1682, "The Medal", an assault upon Shaftesbury. These poems occasioned many attacks on Dryden, and to one of them, the "Medal of John Bayes" by Thomas Shadwell, Dryden replied, in October, 1682, by "MacFlecknoe", a vigorous satire which dismissed Shadwell as the "last great prophet of tautology". In November, 1682, appeared the second part of "Absalom and Achitophel", in which Nahum Tate collaborated. In "Religio Laici" (1682) Dryden presented an argument for the faith of the Church of England, and in 1685, on the death of Charles II, he wrote an ode called "Threnodia Angustalis". In 1684 at Charles' request he had also translated "The History of the League" from the French of Maimbourg. Dryden's position at the death of Charles was not an enviable one. His income from play-writing had ceased, his pensions were not regularly paid, though they were continued by James II, and in answer to his appeal for some of the arrears, which amounted to £1000 in 1683, he had received £75 and an appointment as collector of customs of the port of London, the emoluments of which office are not known. He was converted to Catholicism in 1686. This step was the natural outcome of his investigation into theology, the first result of which had been "Religio Laici". This poem, while a defence of the Church of England, showed a desire for an infallible guide in religious matters and indicates the direction in which Dryden's thoughts were turning. The accession of James gave him the additional incentive of belonging to the king's religion, a powerful motive in Dryden's case, for he was a devoted adherent to authority in Church and State. Dryden was accused of time-serving by his enemies, but this charge is easily disproved by his perseverance in his conversion during the next reign, when he refused even to dedicate his translation of Virgil to William III, lest he should be suspected of denying his religious or political principles.

Dryden published in April, 1687, "The Hind and the Panther", in some ways his most important work. It is divided into three parts; the first describes the different sects in England under the allegorical figures of beasts; the second deals with a controversy between the Hind (the Catholic Church) and the Panther (the Church of England); the third continues this dialogue and develops personal and doctrinal satire. In this poem Dryden succeeded in the difficult task of rendering argument in verse interesting. Especially noteworthy are lines 499-555 (second part), in which he describes the foundation and the authority of the Church, and lines 235-50 (third part), in which he defends his own course of action. In 1688 Dryden translated the "Life of St. Francis Zavier" from the French (1682) of Père Dominique Bouhours, S. J., and when an heir to the throne was born he celebrated the event in his poem of "Britannia Rediviva". The Revolution of 1688 deprived him of his laureateship, and other lucrative posts, on account of his refusal to take the oaths of allegiance to the new government, and left him practically dependent upon his own literary exertions. He turned once more to the stage and produced in 1690 "Don Sebastian", a tragi-comedy in blank verse and prose which rivals "All for Love" for the supreme place among his plays, and in the same year "Amphitryon", a comedy, based on Molière, though with several original situations. In 1691 followed "King Arthur", an opera-masque; in 1692 "Cleomenes", in which Dryden in the course of the blank verse relapses into rhyme; in 1694 "Love Triumphant", a tragi-comedy in blank verse and prose, the last of his plays. In 1693 he published another of his great critical essays, "A Discourse concerning the Original and Progress of Satire", and in 1695 "A Parallel of Poetry and Painting", prefixed to his translation of Du Fresnoy's "Art of Painting".

With his remarkable power of adaptation Dryden now gave his attention to another literary form, that of translation. He had before this, in 1680, made some translations of Ovid; and in the "Miscellanies" of 1684 and 1685, and of 1693 and 1694 there are specimens of Ovid, Horace, Homer, Theocritus and Lucretius, which, together with his more complete translations of Virgil and Juvenal, make a total of about 30,000 lines. In July, 1697, the "Pastorals", the "Georgics", and the "Æneid" of Virgil were published, and the edition was sold off in about six months. Meanwhile, in 1692, Dryden had composed an elegy on Eleonora, Countess of Abingdon, for which he received 500 guineas. About this time, also, he wrote his famous address to Congreve on the failure of the "Double Dealer". In 1699, at the close of his life, he published his "Fables". This volume contained five paraphrases of Chaucer, three of Boccaccio, besides the first book of the "Iliad", and "Alexander's Feast", perhaps his greatest lyrical poem, written in 1697 for a musical society in London which celebrated St. Cecilia's day. Dryden had also written the ode for the celebration in 1687 by the same society. Dryden did not long survive the publication of his last book. He died of inflammation caused by gout, and was buried in Westminster Abbey.

Dryden's position in the history of English literature is one of supreme importance. He brought the rhymed couplet as a means of satire to a brilliancy and a point never surpassed before or since his time; as a close and logical reasoner in verse he has never been equalled. As a dramatist he did much good work and in some cases, as in "All for Love" or "Don Sebastian", he achieved supreme distinction as a lyrist. He has left many exquisite songs and at least two of the finest odes in the language. As a translator and adaptor he ranks high, while as a prose writer he not only produced a body of criticism which established him as one of the greatest of English critics, but he also clarified English prose and marked the way for future development. As a man, he shared the faults of his time, but the scandals heaped upon him by his enemies have fallen away under critical examination, and the impression remains of a brave, honest Englishman, earnest in every cause he championed, who loved to praise who befriended him, and who could suffer reverses in silence and dignity. The standard edition of Dryden's works is that edited by Walter Scott in 18 volumes in 1808 and re-edited by George Saintsbury (Edinburgh, 1882-93).

Charles Dryden

Eldest son of John Dryden the poet, b. at Charlton, in Wiltshire, England, in 1665 or 1666; d. in 1704. He was educated at Westminster, and elected to Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1683, but could not enter, being a Catholic. He contributed to the second volume of his father's "Miscellany" of 1685, and turned into English the seventh satire for the translation of Juvenal in 1692. He then went to Italy and became chamberlain to Pope Innocent XII, coming back to England in 1697 or 1698. He was drowned in the Thames and was buried at Windsor, 10 August, 1704. GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., s. v.; Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.

For lives of Dryden, see SAINTSBURY, Dryden in English Men of Letters Series (1881); CHRISTIE, Memoir in Globe Edition of Dryden's Poems (London, 1870); IDEM in Dryden's Satires (Oxford, 1871, 5th ed., 1893); COLLINS, Memoir in The Satires of Dryden (London, 1893). See also KER in Introduction to the Essays of John Dryden (Oxford, 1900), II; ROOT, Dryden's Conversion to the Roman Catholic Faith in Publications of the Modern Language Association of America (June, 1907), new series, XV, Pt. II; BELJAME, Le public et les hommes de lettres en Angleterre au dix-huitième siècle (Paris, 1883).

ARTHUR H. QUINN

Dualism

(From Lat. duo, two).

Like most other philosophical terms, has been employed in different meanings by different schools.

First, the name has been used to denote the religious or theological system which would explain the universe as the outcome of two eternally opposed and coexisting principles, conceived as good and evil, light and darkness, or some other form of conflicting powers. We find this theory widely prevalent in the East, and especially in Persia, for several centuries before the Christian Era. The Zend-Avesta, ascribed to Zoroaster, who probably lived in the sixth century B.C. and is supposed to be the founder or reformer of the Medo-Persian religion, explains the world as the outcome of the struggle between Ormuzd and Ahriman. Ormuzd is infinite light, supreme wisdom, and the author of all good; Ahriman is the principle of darkness and of all evil. In the third century after Christ, Manes, for a time a convert to Christianity, developed a form of Gnosticism, subsequently styled Manichaeism, in which he sought to fuse some of the elements of the Christian religion with the dualistic creed of Zoroastrianism (see MANICHAEISM and ZOROASTER). Christian philosophy, expounded with minor differences by theologians and philosophers from St. Augustine downwards, holds generally that physical evil is the result of the necessary limitations of finite created beings, and that moral evil, which alone is evil in the true sense, is a consequence of the creation of beings possessed of free wills and is tolerated by God. Both physical and moral evil are to be conceived as some form of privation or defect of being, not as positive entity. Their existence is thus not irreconcilable with the doctrine of theistic monism.

Second, the term dualism is employed in opposition to monism, to signify the ordinary view that the existing universe contains two radically distinct kinds of being or substance -- matter and spirit, body and mind. This is the most frequent use of the name in modern philosophy, where it is commonly contrasted with monism. But it should not be forgotten that dualism in this sense is quite reconcilable with a monistic origin of all things. The theistic doctrine of creation gives a monistic account of the universe in this sense. Dualism is thus opposed to both materialism and idealism. Idealism, however, of the Berkeleyan type, which maintains the existence of a multitude of distinct substantial minds, may along with dualism, be described as pluralism.

Historically, in Greek philosophy as early as 500 B.C. we find the Eleatic School with Parmenides as their chief, teaching a universal unity of being, thus exhibiting a certain affinity with modern German monism. Being alone exists. It is absolutely one, eternal, and unchangeable. There is no real becoming or beginning of being. Seeming changes and plurality of beings are mere appearances. To this unity of being, Plato opposed an original duality--God and unproduced matter, existing side by side from all eternity. This matter, however, was conceived as indeterminate, chaotic, fluctuating, and governed by a blind necessity, in contrast with mind which acts according to plan. The order and arrangement are due to God. Evil and disorder in the world have their source in the resistance of matter which God has not altogether vanquished. Here we seem to have a trace of the Oriental speculation. Again there is another dualism in man. The rational soul is a spiritual substance distinct from the body within which it dwells, somewhat as the charioteer in the chariot. Aristotle is dualistic on sundry important topics. The contrast between the fundamental conceptions of matter and form--a potential and an actualizing principle--runs through all branches of his system. Necessarily coeternal with God, Who is pure actuality, there has existed the passive principle of matter, which in this sense, however, is mere potentiality. But further, along with God Who is the Prime Mover, there must also have existed from all eternity the World moved by God. In his treatment of cognition Aristotle adopts the ordinary common-sense view of the existence of individual objects distinct from our perceptions and ideas of them. Man is an individual substantial being resulting from the coalescence of the two principles--form (the soul) and matter.

Christianity rejected all forms of a dual origin of the world which erected matter, or evil, or any other principle into a second eternal being coexistent with God, and it taught the monistic origin of the universe from one, infinite, self-existing spiritual Being who freely created all things. The unfamiliar conception of free creation, however, met with considerable opposition in the schools of philosophy and was abandoned by several of the earlier heresies. The neo-Platonists sought to lessen the difficulty by emanastic forms of pantheism, and also by inserting intermediate beings between God and the world. But the former method implied a materialistic conception of God, while the latter only postponed the difficulty. From the thirteenth century, through the influence of Albertus Magnus and still more of St. Thomas Aquinas, the philosophy of Aristotle, though subjected to some important modifications, became the accredited philosophy of the Church. The dualistic hypothesis of an eternal world existing side by side with God was of course rejected. But the conception of spiritual beings as opposed to matter received fuller definition and development. The distinction between the human soul and the body which it animates was made clearer and their separability emphasized; but the ultra-dualism of Plato was avoided by insisting on the intimate union of soul and body to constitute one substantial being under the conception of form and matter.

The problem of dualism, however, was lifted into quite a new position in modern philosophy by Descartes (q.v.). Indeed, since his time it has been a topic of central interest in philosophical speculation. His handling of two distinct questions, the one epistemological, the other metaphysical, brought this about. The mind stands in a cognitional relation to the external world, and in a causal relation to the changes within the body. What is the precise nature of each of these relations? According to Descartes the soul is res cogitans. Its essence is thought. It is simple and unextended. It has nothing in common with the body, but is connected with it in a single point, the pineal gland in the centre of the brain. In contrast with this, the essence of matter lies in extension. So the two forms of being are utterly disparate. Consequently the union between them is of an accidental or extrinsic character. Descartes thus approximates to the Platonic conception of charioteer and chariot. Soul and body are really two merely allied beings. How then do they interact? Real reciprocal influence or causal interaction seems impossible between two such disparate things. Geulincx and other disciples of Descartes were driven to invent the hypothesis of occasionalism and Divine assistance, according to which it is God Himself who effects the appropriate change in either body or mind on the occasion of the corresponding change in the other. For this system of miraculous interferences Leibniz substituted the theory of pre-established harmony according to which God has coupled pairs of bodies and souls which are destined to run in parallel series of changes like two clocks started together. The same insoluble difficulty of psycho-physical parallelism remains on the hands of those psychologists and philosophers at the present day who reject the doctrine of the soul as a real being capable of acting on the body which it informs. The ultra-dualism of Descartes was immediately followed on the Continent by the pantheistic monism of Spinoza, which identified mind and matter in one infinite substance of which they are merely "modes."

The cognitional question Descartes solves by a theory of knowledge according to which the mind immediately perceives only its own ideas or modifications. The belief in an external world corresponding to these ideas is of the nature of an inference, and the guaranteeing of this inference or the construction of a reliable bridge from the subjective world of thought to the objective world of material being, was thenceforth the main problem of modern philosophy. Locke similarly taught that the mind immediately apprehends only its own ideas, but he assumed a real external world which corresponds to these ideas, at least as regards the primary qualities of matter. Berkeley, accepting Locke's assumption that the mind immediately cognizes only its own ideas, raised the question: What grounds have we for believing in the existence of a material world corresponding to those ideas? He concludes that there are none. The external cause of these ideas is God Who awakens them in our minds by regular laws. The dualistic opposition between mind and matter is thus got rid of by denying an independent material world. But Berkeley still postulates multitude of real substantial minds distinct from each other and apparently from God. We have thus idealistic pluralism. Hume carried Berkeley's scepticism a step farther and denied the existence of permanent spiritual substances, or minds, for grounds similar to those on which Berkeley rejected material substances. All we know to exist are ideas of greater or less vividness. Kant repudiates this more extreme scepticism and adopts, at least in the second edition of his chief work, a form of dualism based on the distinction of phenomena and noumena. The mind immediately perceives only its own representations. These are modified by innate mental forms. They present to us only phenomena. But the noumena, the things-in-themselves, the external causes of these phenomenal representations, are beyond our power of cognition. Fichte rejected things-in-themselves outside the mind, and reduced the Kantian dualism to idealistic monism. The strongest and most consistent defenders of dualism in modern philosophy have been the Scotch School, including Reid, Stuart, and Hamilton. Among English writers in more recent times Martineau, McCosh, Mivart, and Case have carried on the same tradition on similar lines.

The problem of dualism, as its history suggests, involves two main questions:

• Does there exist a material world outside of our minds and independent of our thought?
• Supposing such a world to exist, how does the mind attain to the cognition of it?

The former question belongs to epistemology, material logic, or general philosophy; the latter to psychology. It is true that dualism is ultimately rejected by the materialist who reduces conscious states to functions, or "aspects" of the brain; but objections from this standpoint will be more suitably dealt with under materialism and monism. The idealist theory since Berkeley, in all its forms, maintains that the mind can only know its own states or representations, and that what we suppose to be an independent, material world is, in the last analysis, only a series of ideas and sensations plus belief in the possibility of other sensations. Our conviction of the objective reality of a vivid consistent dream is analogous to our conviction of the validity of our waking experience. Dualism affirms, in opposition to all forms of idealism, the independent, extramental reality of the material world. Among its chief arguments are the following:

• Our belief in the existence of other minds is an inference from their bodies. Consequently the denial of an external material world involves the rejection of all evidence for the existence of other minds, and lands the idealist in the position of "Solipsism".
• Physical science assumes the existence of a material world, existing when unperceived, possessing various properties, and exerting various powers according to definite constant laws. Thus astronomy describes the movements of heavenly bodies moving in space of three dimensions, attracting each other with forces inversely proportioned to the square of the distance. It postulates the movement and action of such bodies when they are invisible as well as when they are visible through long periods of time and over vast areas of space. From these assumptions it deduces future positions and foretells eclipses and transits many years ahead. Observations carried out by subsequent generations verify the predictions. Were there not an extramental world whose parts exist and act in a space and time truly mirrored by our cognitions and ideas, such a result would be impossible. The branches of science dealing with sound, light, heat, and electricity are equally irreconcilable with idealism.
• The teachings of physiology and psycho-physics become peculiarly absurd in the idealist theory. What, for instance, is meant by saying that memory is dependent on modifications in the nervous substance of the brain, if all the material world, including the brain, is but a collection of mental states?
• Psychology similarly assumes the extramental reality of the human body in its account of the growth of the senses and the development of perception. Were the idealist hypothesis true its language would be meaningless. All branches of science thus presuppose and confirm the dualistic view of common sense.

Granted, then, the truth of dualism, the psychological question emerges: How does the mind come to know the material world? Broadly speaking there are two answers. According to one the mind immediately perceives only its own representations or ideas and from these it infers external material objects as the cause of these ideas. According to the other, in some of its acts it immediately perceives extended objects or part of the material world. As Hamilton says: "What we directly apprehend is the Non-ego, not some modification of the Ego". The theory which maintains an immediate perception of the non-ego he calls natural dualism or natural realism. The other, which holds a mediate cognition of the non-ego, as the inferred cause of a representation immediately apprehended, he terms hypothetical dualism or hypothetical realism. The doctrine of immediate or presentative perception is that adopted by the great body of Scholastic philosophers and is embodied in the dictum that the idea, concept, or mental act of apprehension is non id quod percipitur sed medium quo res percipitur -- not that which is perceived but the medium by which the object itself is perceived. This seems to be the only account of the nature of knowledge that does not lead logically to idealism; and the history of the subject confirms this view. But affirmation of the mind's capacity for immediate perception of the non-ego and insistence on the distinction between id quod and id quo percipitur, do not dispose of the whole difficulty. Modern psychology has become genetic. Its interest centres in tracing the growth and development of cognition from the simplest and most elementary sensations of infancy. Analysis of the perceptive processes of a later age, e.g. apprehension of size, shape, solidity, distance, and other qualities of remote objects, proves that operations seemingly instantaneous and immediate may involve the activity of memory, imagination, judgment, reasoning, and subconscious contributions from the past experience of other senses. There is thus much that is indirect and inferential in nearly all the percipient acts of mature life. This should be frankly admitted by the defender of natural dualism, and the chief psychological problem for him at the present day is to sift and discriminate what is immediate and direct from what is mediate or representative in the admittedly complex cognitional operations of normal adult life.

IN FAVOUR OF NATURAL DUALISM:--RICKABY, First Principles of Knowledge (New York and London, 1901); CASE, Physical Realism (New York and London, 1881); UEBERWEG, Logic, tr. (London, 1871); HAMILTON, Metaphysics (Edinburgh and London, 1877); McCOSH, Exam. of Mill (New York, 1875); MARTINEAU, A Study of Religion (Oxford, 1888): MIVART, Nature and Thought (London, 1882); MAHER, Psychology (New York and London, 1908); FARGES, L'Objectivit de la Perception (Paris, 1891). AGAINST NATURAL DUALISM:--BERKELEY, Principles of Human Knowledge, ed. FRASER (Oxford, 1871): ed. KRAUTH (Philadelphia, 1874); MILL, An Exam. of Sir W. Hamilton (London, 1865); BRADLEY, Appearance and Reality (New York and London, 1899).

MICHAEL MAHER

Dublin

(DUBLINIUM; DUBLINENSIS).

Archdiocese; occupies about sixty miles of the middle eastern coast of Ireland, and penetrates inland, about forty-six miles, including all the County of Dublin, nearly all of Wicklow, and parts of Kildare and Wexford, with three suffragans: Kildare and Leighlin, Ferns, and Ossory. It covers an area of 698,277 statute acres.

Ptolemy, who flourished in the first half of the second century, on his famous map places Eblana civitas under the same parallel of latitude as the present city of Dublin. The first mention of Duibhlinn in any extant Irish chronicles is found in the "Annals of the Four Masters", under date of 291, where the name, which in English signifies a black pool, is quoted as that of a river on the bank of which a battle was fought by the King of Ireland against the Leinstermen. A river still empties into the Liffey at Dublin, now known as the Poddle River, but formerly designated the Pool or Pole, clearly a survival of the earlier Black-Pool. The natives distinguished the locality as Ath-Cliath, i.e. "The Ford of Hurdles", from the wicker bridge or ford by which the great road from Tara was conducted across the Liffey into Cualann (South County Dublin and Wicklow).

In 852, when Aulaf (Olaf) the Dane invaded Ireland and subjected all the contending tribes of Danes, he erected a fortress on the triangle of elevated land formed by the confluence of the Duibhlinn with the Liffey, a site now occupied by Dublin Castle. This fortress, taking its name from the river over which it stood, was called in Scandinavian Dyflin. In Anglo-Norman charters of the time of Henry II it became Duvelina; the legal scribes of King John brought it nearer to the name Dublin, which it has ever since retained. The fortress once established, there is no difficulty in imagining a town or city growing up and clustering around it, which after some time was furnished with a defensive wall, some remnants of which are yet visible.

EARLY CHRISTIAN HISTORY

The Christian Faith was preached in this territory, first by Palladius and then by St. Patrick. The stay of Palladius in Ireland was very short, scarcely a year, yet during that brief space he established three Christian communities, Teach-Renan (Tigroney), and Donard in County Wicklow, with Ceille-Finne in County Kildare. When the death of Palladius was known at Rome in 431, Patrick was immediately selected and consecrated bishop for this Irish mission. To him, therefore, thenceforth regarded as the Apostle of Ireland, the See of Dublin looks as to its founder. His first visit after brief landings at Wicklow, Malahide, and Holmpatrick, was to his old slave-master in the northern parts of the country. But so soon as he was able to gain the sanction of Leoghaire, King of Ireland, to preach the Gospel throughout the land, he visited every part of the island and made innumerable converts. At Kilcullen, in the Dublin Diocese, he established a bishop, and another at Lusk; while there are few parishes in the diocese that do not lay claim to a visit from him. Soon after his death in 492, the monastic system, which Patrick had himself partly initiated, became the settled form of ecclesiastical organisation in Ireland. The number of tribes into which the country was divided, and the fierce inter-tribal jealousy that prevailed at all times, rendered this system the more desirable. Each tribe had its own monastic establishment with a portion of the tribe lands set apart for its endowment, and in most of these centres a bishop was to be found, frequently (but not necessarily) the ruler of the community. It was in such establishments that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was centred. In this way we meet mention from time to time of bishops at Kilcullen, Lusk, Swords, Finglas, Glendalough, Taney, Clondalkin, Castledermot, and Bray. We have no existing records and but scant traditions of any monastic establishment known as Duibhlinn; but a tribe did lie scattered along the valley of the Coombe, which may have taken its name, as did the Danish fortress later on, from the Duibhlinn which meandered through its midst. The old church-dedications, which were certainly Celtic, of Patrick, Bridget, Kevin, and MacTaill in this very neighbourhood, would point to such a conclusion. Such a tribe would undoubtedly have had its monastery with its resident bishop. If this surmise be correct, it would help to explain a list of bishops given in Harris's edition of Ware's "Antiquities of Ireland", and described as Bishops of Dublin; whilst from the invariable practice they all seem to have adopted, of embarking in some foreign missionary enterprise, they can scarcely be regarded as diocesan bishops in the accepted sense of the term, i.e. as prelates wedded to their sees.

The first of these bishops that we meet with is St. Livinus. He travelled into Belgium, where he converted many, and was at length crowned with martyrdom, 12 November, 663, in which month his feast is celebrated. To him succeeded Disibod, who being driven out by violence went to Germany, and after forty years labour in the neighbourhood of Disibodenberg named after him, died a very holy death. He flourished about 675. St. Wiro is next. He emulated the example of Livinus and passed over into Gaul. The at the request of Pepin of Heristal, he established himself about 700 at Roermond in Holland, where a portion of his relics is preserved under the high altar the cathedral dedicated to him. St. Gualafer is mentioned as bishop in the eighth century, but of him nothing is known except that he baptised and instructed his successor, who figures more conspicuously. St. Rumold was certainly Irish-born, and reputed to have been some time Bishop of Dublin. He cherished an ardent desire for martyrdom, and setting out for Rome there received the pope's blessing. On his return journey he preached at Mechlin with great zeal and success. Having had occasion to rebuke certain public sinners, he met at their hands the longed-for martyrdom. He is the patron of Mechlin, whose splendid cathedral is dedicated to him, and his relics are preserved there in a sumptuous silver shrine. St. Sedulius, who died in 785, is given by some writers as "Bishop of Dublin", by others as "Abbot of Dublin". In all probability he filled both offices. In or about 890 there is mention of Cormac as bishop. Ware could learn nothing about him. D'Alton says he was bishop when Gregory, King of Scotland, besieged and captured Dublin.

DANISH PERIOD

The year 815 is commonly assigned as the date when Scandinavian invaders began to make permanent settlements in Ireland. Hitherto their repeated visits had been mere piratical expeditions. They landed, plundered, and departed. But that year Turgesius and his followers came to stay. The "Annals of the Four Masters" tell us that in 849 the Duibhgoill or "black foreigners" arrived at Ath Cliath and made a great slaughter of the Finngoill or "white foreigners". In 850 the former gained a still more decisive victory. Finally in 852 Aulaf (Olaf) invaded Ireland, "and all the foreign tribes submitted to him". Thus was founded the Danish city and kingdom of Dublin. Aulaf was succeeded by Ivar in 870, and as the latter was at the same time King of Northumbria, this dual sovereignty of the Danish kings of Dublin was with occasional brief interruptions maintained throughout a period of nearly a century and a half. Paganism was of course the cult of these rude Norsemen. They sedulously practised the worship of Thor and Woden, and thus during a great portion of their prolonged rule in Dublin its Christian history becomes a blank, varied at intervals by doleful recitals of the burning and plundering of celebrated monasteries, such as Glendalough, Lusk, Swords, Clondalkin, etc. The first of the Danish kings to embrace Christianity was Sitric, who was baptized in England, and married King Athelstan's daughter in 925. But he very soon abjured the Faith, abandoned his wife, and died a pagan. His son, however, Aulaf Cuarann, on visiting England, was there converted in 943, and received at baptism by King Edmund. He remained firm in the Faith, and going to Iona on a pilgrimage in 980, died there "after penance and a good life". It was the conversion of this Aulaf and his family, aided by the efforts of Northumbrian monks whom he had brought over with him, that led to the conversion of the Danes of Dublin which chroniclers assign to 948.

The great victory won by King Brian Born on the plain of Clontarf in 1014 broke for ever the power of the Danes in Ireland, but it did not dispossess them of Dublin. Their kings continued to rule there for a century and a half; nevertheless, the completeness of the victory, together with the civilising effects of Christianity, disposed the contending races to more friendly intercourse, and enabled Celt and Dane henceforward to live tog ether in comparative peace. In 1038, little more than twenty years after the battle of Clontarf, we find another King Sitric (II) at Dublin, who, seeing that his subjects had all become Christians, was moved to organise the Church on a proper hierarchical basis. Wherefore in that year he founded and endowed a cathedral dedicated to the Holy Trinity (since Queen Elizabeth's time appropriated to Protestant worship and known as Christ Church). To minister in his cathedral he had a bishop appointed and consecrated; with this first bishop of the Danish Christians in Dublin, the See of Dublin may be said to have been formally founded. Having received their Christianity from Northumbria, the Danes looked to Canterbury for their spiritual government; and had their first bishop, Donatus, consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Except in faith and general discipline they were in no way identified with the rest of Christian Ireland.

Donatus died in 1074 and was succeeded by Patrick, who bore commendatory letters to Lanfranc and was consecrated by him in St. Paul's, London. After ruling the diocese for about ten years he perished at sea in 1084. Donat O'Haingly, evidently an Irishman, came next. He was a Benedictine monk in Lanfranc's monastery at Canterbury. By consent of the king and of the clergy of Dublin he was consecrated by Lanfranc in 1085. He died of the plague in 1095. To him succeeded his nephew Samuel O'Haingly, a Benedictine monk of St. Alban's. He was consecrated at Winchester by Saint Anselm on the Sunday after Easter, 1096, and died in 1121. It was to this prelate that St. Anselm administered the sharp rebuke for having removed the monks from his church, from which we may infer that it was at this period that a chapter of secular canons was established in the cathedral, its clergy having been previously monastic. Gregory was chosen as successor. He is described as a wise man and well skilled in languages. He was consecrated at Lambeth by Ralph, Archbishop of Canterbury.

TWELFTH-CENTURY REFORMS

During Gregory's incumbency great and far-reaching changes were wrought in the ecclesiastical organisation of Ireland. Up to this time, except in the Danish towns of Dublin, Waterford, and Limerick, the old system of centring jurisdiction in the monastery of the clan with a bishop resident, almost universally prevailed, but Gillebert (Gilbert), Bishop of Limerick, who had travelled much, and had made the acquaintance of St. Anselm, received a strong letter from the latter exhorting him to do his utmost, in union with the Irish bishops, to reform certain abuses and bring the system of ecclesiastical government more into conformity with the prevailing practice of Christendom. Whereupon Gillebert having received legatine powers from Paschal II convoked a synod which met at Rath-Breassail in 1118. At this synod the number of sees was fixed at twenty-four, Dublin excluded. Glendalough, the church founded by St. Kevin in the sixth century, was definitely erected into a diocese, but the Danish See of Dublin was ignored, or if referred to, it is described a being in the Diocese of Glendalough, for the latter came up to the very walls of Dublin and surrounded them on all sides. St. Malachy, consecrated Bishop of Connor about 1127, followed up the work of Gillebert, and on the occasion of a journey to Rome, besought Innocent II to constitute the Bishops of Armagh and Cashel metropolitans and transmit the pallium to them. Before his request could be fully considered, Malachy on a second journey fell sick on the way, and died at Clairvaux in the arms of St. Bernard (1148). The object of his journey, however, was not lost sight of, and in 1151, Eugene III commissioned Cardinal Paparo to proceed to Ireland and establish there four metropolitans, giving him the palliums with which each was to be invested. The cardinal on his arrival convoked a general synod at Kells in 1152. At this synod Armagh, Dublin, Cashel, and Tuam, were created archiepiscopal sees, with canonical jurisdiction over their suffragans, and each of the new archbishops received the pallium. In this way Gregory became the first Archbishop of Dublin, and had assigned to him as suffragans the Sees of Kildare, Ossory, Leighlin, Ferns, and Glendalough In a document drawn up by the then Archbishop of Tuam, in 1214 the cardinal is described as finding on his arrival in Ireland, a bishop dwelling in Dublin, who at the time exercised his episcopal office within the walls. "He found in the same Diocese another church in the mountains, which likewise had the name of a city [Glendalough] and had a certain chorepiscopus. But he delivered the pallium to Dublin which was the best city and appointed that the diocese [Glendalough] in which both these cities were should be divided, and that one part thereof should fall to the metropolitan." This severed the North County Dublin known as Fingall, from Glendalough Diocese and annexed it to Dublin. Thus was the Church in Ireland reorganised in strict hierarchical form, and all dependence upon Canterbury was brought to an end.

Archbishop Gregory died in 1161 and was buried in the Holy Trinity Cathedral. To him succeeded Lorcan (latinized Laurentius) O'Toole, son of Muriartach, Prince of Imaile. His mother was an O'Byrne, so that he was Irish of the Irish. Entrusted at an early age to the care of the Bishop of Glendalough he grew up a pious and exemplary youth and eventually became a monk there. When but twenty-five years old he was elected abbot and a few years later bishop of the see. This choice, however, he successfully withstood. But his resistance did not long avail him. As soon as the See of Dublin was vacated both clergy and people turned their eyes on the Abbot of Glendalough and would not be refused. He was consecrated in Dublin cathedral by Gelasius of Armagh in 1162. His first act was to induce the canons of his chapter to become canons regular according to the rule of the priory of Aroasia. He himself assumed the religious habit with them and scrupulously conformed to the rule. He was indefatigable in his work and boundless in his charity. In 1167 he attended a great convention held at Athboy at the request of King Roderic O'Conor, and helped there to enact several decrees affecting ecclesiastical discipline. In the following year the ill-starred Dermot MacMurrough set out for England to negotiate the betrayal of his country. In 1169 the first expedition of the Anglo-Normans landed in Ireland, and Wexford and Waterford soon fell before them. They then marched on Dublin, and in this expedition Strongbow was joined by the army of Dermot. Hasculf, the Danish king, made a sturdy defence, but eventually the city was captured and Hasculf and his followers escaped to their ships. In 1171 they returned with a number of Norwegians collected at Orkney and the Isles, and attacked the eastern gate of the city. St. Laurence implored King Roderic to come to their aid; the latter did assemble an army, but their operations were ineffective, and the grip of the Norman fastened on Dublin, never again to be relaxed. King Henry II of England landed this same year, and received at Dublin the fealty of most of the native princes. Thenceforward Ireland became an appendage of the English Crown.

Early in the following year a synod was held in Cashel by order of Henry, at which Laurence assisted and where among other disciplinary regulations, the system of tithes was introduced, as is commonly believed. With the aid of Strongbow and other Norman chiefs he was enabled to enlarge and beautify Christ Church, i.e. Holy Trinity Cathedral, and the transepts and one bay of the choir remain to this day evidences of his work. In 1177 Cardinal Vivian arrived in Ireland as papal legate, summoned a meeting of bishops and abbots, and inculcated obedience to the conquerors. In 1179 Archbishop Laurence went to Rome to attend the Third General Council of the Lateran under Alexander III. The pope received him with marked kindness, took his see under his protection, confirmed its possessions, and extended its boundaries on the south as far as Bray. He also appointed him his legate in Ireland. Some time in 1180 the archbishop again crossed to England for the purpose of interviewing King Henry in the interests of his people, but Henry had no wish to see him and fled into Normandy. Laurence, nothing daunted, quickly pursued him, but had scarcely landed on the Norman coast when he fell seriously ill. He asked to be brought to the community of Canons Regular established at Eu, and there died peacefully 14 November, 1180. He was canonised by Honorius III in 1226, and his relics, being transferred, were placed over the high altar in a costly shrine where they are still devoutly venerated. His feast is celebrated in Dublin each recurring 14 November with great pomp and solemnity, and a parish church in a city is specially dedicated to him.

NORMAN-ENGLISH ARCHBISHOPS

With the passing of St. Laurence, the Irish character of the newly constructed hierarchy, as far as Dublin was concerned was brought to a premature close. The conquerors brought with them a colony of Bristol men and settled them in Dublin, and also brought all their feudal privileges and customs, prominent among which was the right of the English monarch to nominate to vacant sees within his dominion, this with the concurrence of the Holy See. In the exercise of this prerogative, Henry II named John Comyn, an Englishman, as successor to Laurence O'Toole. Henceforward, for full four centuries, the see was occupied by an unbroken line of twenty-five archbishops, all English men, born, bred, and beneficed in England. Comyn proceeded to Rome where he was first ordained priest, and then consecrated bishop, by Lucius III at Velletri. He did not take up his residence in Dublin until 1184. The king conferred additional lands upon him to be held in barony tenure, by virtue of which he became a Lord of Parliament. In 1185 he received Prince John on his landing in Ireland, and in the same year the Diocese of Glendalough was united to Dublin; this union, however, was not to take effect until after the death of the governing bishop, William Piro. In 1186 he assembled a provincial synod in Christ Church cathedral at which several important canons were enacted. In 1190 he undertook the work of building a new church just outside the city wall. He erected it on the site of an old Celtic church dedicated to St. Patrick, but preserved the original dedication and opened it with great solemnity on Patrick's Day, 1191. In connection with this church he founded and endowed a collegiate chapter of thirteen canons and erected an episcopal residence close by, which became known as St. Sepulchre's.

Archbishop Comyn died in 1212 and was succeeded by Henry de Loundres, Archdeacon of Stafford. Two years later William Piro, Bishop of Glendalough, died, whereupon the union of the sees promised by King John took place. De Loundres's principal work was the conversion of the collegiate chapter established by his predecessor in connection with St. Patrick's, into a cathedral chapter, with four dignities and an increased number of prebendaries. This change presented the singular spectacle of a city having two cathedrals, with two chapters, one monastic, the other secular, an arrangement which fed to a good deal of friction and gave much trouble to succeeding archbishops. In 1228 de Loundres was succeeded by Archbishop Luke, brought over from London. Flourishing as he did in the period of cathedral building, we need not be surprised to learn that he caught the infection, and practically re-erected St. Patrick's as we have it to-day, and put the nave to Christ Church as we see it in its restored condition. It scarcely necessary to go through nominatim the series of English bishops who filled the see during the medieval period. Suffice it to mention, that as most of them held some government post, such as lord chancellor, or lord treasurer, in conjunction with the arch-bishopric, their spiritual influence was thereby rendered obnoxious to the native clans of the O'Byrnes and O'Tooles, when they shook off the English yoke during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The Holy See, not to leave the natives without episcopal care, was compelled to provide a bishop for them, titularly of Glendalough, and the rubricelle in the Vatican Library furnish a list of six such bishops who presided over the mountainous region of the diocese well into the reign of Henry VIII.

THE ANGLICAN SCHISM

This monarch, unhappily as is well known, dislocated everything in Church and State. The foul murder of Archbishop Alan, author of the valuable "Liber Niger" and "Repertorium Viride", by the followers of Silken Thomas in 1534, afforded the king the much desired opportunity of introducing his religious vagaries into Ireland. He kept the see vacant for nearly a year, and then filled it without any reference to the pope, by the appointment of George Browne. Browne had been provincial of the suppressed Augustinian Hermits in England, and was the bond slave of Henry, ready to do his master's bidding. He was consecrated by Cranmer, 19 March, 1535-6, and took up his residence in Dublin in August, 1536. The antecedents of Browne and the schismatical character of his appointment did not recommend him to the Dublin clergy. He complained of their resistance to his injunctions and was compelled to send round his own servants in order to cancel the pope's name in the service-books. A sharp warning from the king stirred him up to more demonstrative action, and forthwith he had all holy relics preserved in Christ Church cathedral, including St. Patrick's crosier known as the "Staff of Jesus", gathered into a heap and burned. He co-operated only too gladly in the suppression of all the religious houses, in changing the prior and convent of Christ Church into a secular dean and chapter, and in the total suppression of St. Patrick's chapter. Under Edward VI he introduced that monarch's new liturgy, as found in his first "Book of Common Prayer", into the cathedral, and finished by taking a wife.

With the accession of Queen Mary all things Catholic were restored, and Browne, being convicted of being a married bishop, was deposed. The queen filled the vacant see by nominating Hugh Curwen, Dean of Hereford, yet another Englishman, and the royal nomination was confirmed at Rome. She also reestablished the dean and chapter of St. Patrick's. While the queen survived, unhappily not long, Curwen behaved as a Catholic, but on the accession of Elizabeth, he was ready to worship the rising sun, to accept her royal supremacy and Act of Uniformity, and eventually a transfer to the See of Oxford as its Protestant bishop. This apostasy, coupled with the severe persecution of Catholics which continued through the whole of Elizabeth's reign, left the See of Dublin without a Catholic bishop for full forty years. The compensations were, however, a firm and faithful clergy and people, and a long roll of martyrs and confessors.

END OF PERSECUTION

Some attempt was made by the Holy See to provide a bishop in 1585 by appointing a certain Donald or Donatus, but he did not live to take possession, and not until 1600 was his successor appointed in the person of Matthew d'Oviedo, a Spanish Franciscan. Though he came to Ireland, he dared not set foot in his diocese, but governed it through vicars-general, three of whom successively ended their days in prison. Finally about 1611 d'Oviedo returned to Spain and resigned the see, being succeeded by Dr. Eugene Matthews, transferred from Clogher. Dr. Matthews laboured hard and in most difficult times. In 1615 he called a provincial synod in Kilkenny wherein, amongst other enactments, the parochial system was reorganised and order evolved out of chaos. He narrowly escaped imprisonment more than once, and eventually betook himself to Rome where he died in 1623. Early in 1625 his successor Dr. Thomas Fleming, a Franciscan, was appointed. After the outbreak of 1641 and when the Confederation of Kilkenny was initiated, he was appointed a member of the supreme council and took part in its deliberations. But the arrival and victory of the Cromwellians in Dublin in 1649 closed the gates of his cathedral city against him; he took refuge in Galway and died there in 1651 or 1652. Dr. Edmund O'Reilly, his vicar-general, was proposed as vicar Apostolic, but his imprisonment and subsequent exile rendered this proposal abortive, and in 1656 Dr. James Dempsey, vicar capitular of Leighlin, was appointed to this office. In his first report to the Holy See, after the horrors of war, pestilence, and banishment, he states "that in the diocese of Dublin there were not enough Catholics to form three parishes".

The restoration of Charles II to the throne occurred during Dr. Dempsey's administration and would probably have resulted in some benevolent policy of toleration had not the intrigues of the Franciscan friar, Peter Walsh, brought new troubles upon the suffering members of the Faith. The assembly of clergy held in Dublin in 1666 at the instance of. Walsh and out manoeuvred by him, did not bring peace. Dr. Dempsey died in 1667, and the see was again vacant until 1669 when the Holy See appointed Dr. Peter Talbot of the Malahide family. He was consecrated at Ghent, 2 May. In 1670 he held a diocesan synod, and a meeting of bishops was held in Dublin in the same year which furnished the occasion, by a claim for precedence, for the first contention between Armagh and Dublin concerning the primacy. In 1673 he was banished the kingdom; it was not until. 1677 when broken in health, that he was allowed to return; he was, however, immediately committed a close prisoner to Dublin Castle where after lingering for two years he died. He was a learned man and a prolific writer. In 1683 Dr. Patrick Russell, a native of the County Dublin, succeeded him. The advent of a Catholic king raised the hopes of the afflicted Catholics of Ireland, and with liberty restored to the Church they took heart to make a strong march forward. A provincial synod was assembled in 1685, another in 1688; in 1686 and 1689 diocesan synods were held. The metropolitan chapter, which had never died, was reorganised and the precedence of its members settled. Many other works were projected by Dr. Russell, but the disastrous defeat at the Boyne, in 1690, and the flight of King James put an end to all hope and reduced the Catholics to a worse condition than ever. Dr. Russell was apprehended and cast into prison, where he died in 1692. King James, still recognised by the Holy See, claimed the exercise of the royal prerogative of nominating to vacant sees; the claim being admitted, he named Peter Creagh, Bishop of Cork, as Archbishop of Dublin. Dr. Creagh was an exile in France, and was obliged to govern through a vicar general. He went himself as auxiliary to the Bishop of Strasburg where he died in 1705. Of the six archbishops who filled the see in the seventeenth century, two could never set foot in the diocese, two died in exile, and two in prison. When the penal laws commenced their ferocious career (1705) Ireland was reduced to a single bishop, the Bishop of Dromore, and he was confined in Newgate Prison, Dublin. The new hierarchy sprang from his prison cell. Therein was consecrated (1707) Dr. O'Rorke, Bishop of Killala, and once established in the Apostolic office, he imposed hands on the newly chosen Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Edmund Byrne, parish priest of St. Nicholas.

The population and extent of Dublin had been steadily increasing ever since the Restoration, and new quarters had grown up. Dr. Byrne's first care was to erect these into parishes. To him owe their origin St. Mary's, St. Paul's, and St. Andrew's. In 1710 the oath of abjuration, aimed against the Stuarts, but full of other objectionable matter, raised a new storm of persecution, and Dr. Byrne for a time was forced to hide with his relatives in Kildare. With varying vicissitudes he continued to rule the diocese until his death in January, 1723-4. He was succeeded by Dr. Edward Murphy, transferred from Kildare. This archbishop continued to date his letters, according to the well-known formula of hunted bishops: e loco refugii nostri, i.e. from our place of refuge. He died in 1729 and was followed by Dr. Luke Fagan, translated from Meath, who died in 1734, and had for his successor Dr. John Linegar, a native of Dublin, who lived until 1757, when his coadjutor Dr. Richard Lincoln, also a native of the city, succeeded him. In 1763 he died, and was followed by Dr. Patrick Fitzsimon who governed the see until 1770, when Dr. John Carpenter succeeded. With him may be said to commence the modern history of the diocese, for he was the first of the archbishops, since Archbishop Alan's time, who left behind him, carefully compiled, detailed records of the diocese. He died on 29 October, 1786.

RESTORATION OF CATHOLIC LIFE

With a rapidity extraordinary for that time, Dr. John Thomas Troy, a Dominican, was transferred 9 December, 1786, from Ossory to the Archbishopric of Dublin. For thirty-seven years he governed the Church of Dublin well and wisely. He witnessed the first assertion of Catholic rights, took part in the foundation of Maynooth College, and laid the foundation stone of the metropolitan church in Marlborough Street, which still does duty as pro-cathedral. Archbishop Troy saw the beginnings of the Christian Brothers and the restoration of the Jesuits, while churches and schools multiplied under his eyes. He died in 1823 and was buried in the vaults of the new metropolitan church not yet quite ready for use. His coadjutor, Dr. Daniel Murray, a native of Wicklow, succeeded him. Educated in Salamanca, he was an eloquent, cultured, and pious ecclesiastic, described by his panegyrist as "the Francis de Sales of Ireland". To him belong the completion of the pro cathedral, the founding of the Irish Sisters of Charity and the communities of Loretto. He witnessed the achievement of Catholic Emancipation in 1829, the wonderful career of the Liberator, Daniel O'Connell of the great temperance movement under Father Mathew, and the establishment of a system of national (primary) education of which he himself was appointed a commissioner. The awakening of a nation and of a church to a new life and increased responsibilities was accomplished in his time. He died in 185, regretted by all, and was buried in the Marlborough Street vaults, where in the church above them, a beautiful kneeling statue by Sir Thomas Farrell, adorn the northern transept.

Archbishop Murray was followed by Dr. Paul Cullen (q. v.), then Archbishop of Armagh, who in June, 1852, was solemnly enthroned in Dublin. He founded the diocesan seminary and the Mater Misericordiae Hospital. He inaugurated innumerable new churches, colleges, and schools, and became the recognised champion of Catholic education all the world over. In 1866 he was made cardinal—Ireland's first cardinal. In 1870 he took a distinguished part in the Vatican Council, and in 1875 presided over the National Synod of Maynooth. In 1878 he went to Rome to assist at the conclave which elected Leo XIII, but arrived late, and in October of that year passed to his reward. He is interred in the crypt of the college chapel at Clonliffe; a fine marble statue perpetuates his memory in the pro cathedral.

In October, 1878, Dr. Edward McCabe, consecrated assistant bishop in 1877, was raised to the archiepiscopal office. His administration was short. In 1882 Pope Leo conferred on him the dignity of cardinal. Never in very robust health, he died in February, 1885. He was interred at Glasnevin where a handsome mausoleum is erected to his memory. In July, 1885, the Most Rev. William J. Walsh was appointed to succeed him.

STATISTICS

The status of the diocese (1908) is as follows: archbishop 1: bishop (of Canea) 1; par ishes, 74; parish priests, 70; administrators, 4; Curates etc., 190; in diocesan seminary, 9; chaplains, 21; secular clergy, 293; regular clergy, 247; public churches, chapels, and oratories, 193; convents, 93. Catholic population (Census of 1901), 407,514; non-Catholic population, 112,498; total, 520,012.

The religious orders are very well represented in Dublin by houses of Augustinians, Capuchins, Carmelites, Dominicans, Franciscans, Holy Ghost Fathers, Jesuits, Lazarists, Marists, Oblates, and Passionists. Dublin is the residence of the Superior General of the Irish Christian Brothers and the seat of their novitiate. Numerous sisterhoods, both within and without the city (Sisters of Charity, Mercy, Loretto, Dominican, Presentation, Carmelite, Holy Faith, Sacred Heart, Poor Clares, Assumption, Bon Secours, Poor Servants, Heart of Mary, etc.) devote themselves to the usual works of education and charity (hospitals, orphanages, asylums for the aged poor, for the blind and for deaf-mutes of both sexes, industrial schools, homes, refuses, lunatic asylums, etc.).

The Catholic University of Ireland, founded in 1854, consists (since 1882) of the following (6) colleges located for the most part near Dublin: St. Patrick's College, Maynooth; University College, St. Stephen's Green (Jesuits); University College, Blackrock (Holy Ghost Fathers); St. Patrick's College, Carlow; Holy Cross College, Clonliffe; and the School of Medicine, Dublin. Each of these colleges retains its own independent organisation. (For the history of this university see CULLEN; MACHALE; NEWMAN; IRELAND.) Other colleges are conducted by the Jesuits (Belvedere College), the Holy Ghost Fathers (Rathmines), the Carmelites (Terenure), and the Lazarists (Castleknock). The Holy Cross College (Clonliffe) is the diocesan college or seminary for aspirants to the priesthood. For the ecclesiastical seminary of St. Patrick's, Maynooth, see MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.

By the New Universities Act passed in 1908, the official existence of the Catholic University of Ireland was brought to a close. This Act suppressed the Royal University of Ireland, and created two new universities in Ireland, both strictly undenominational. One had its seat in Belfast, and absorbed the Queen's College already existing there; the other had its seat in Dublin, with a new college founded there, and absorbing the Queen's Colleges in Cork and Galway. The new Colleges of Dublin, Cork, and Galway, although undenominational under the Act, principally subserved Catholic interests, Dublin University (Trinity College) being left undisturbed and mostly frequented as well as governed by members of the Protestant Church. The Archbishop of Dublin is nominated, though not ex officio, a member of the Senate of the new university having a seat in Dublin, and also a member of the Statutory Commission charged by the Crown with the duty of revising and approving of the statutes of the several colleges comprised in the university.

GILBERT, Crede Mihi (Dublin, 1897); IDEM, History of the City of Dublin (Dublin, 1859); WARE, ed. HARRIS, Antiquities of Ireland (Dublin. 1764); d'ALTON, Memoirs of the Archbishops of Dublin (Dublin, 1838); MORAN, History of the Catholic Archbishops of Dublin (Dublin, 1864); IDEM, Spicilegium Ossoriense (Dublin, 1874); RENEHAN, Collections on Irish Church History (Dublin, 1861); SHEARMAN, Loca Patriciana (Dublin, 1874); HALLIDAY, Scandinavian History of Dublin (Dublin, 1864); Reports 20th, 23rd and 24th, Public Records in Ireland (Dublin. 1888, 1891, and 1892; LEWIS, Topographical Dictionary of Ireland (2 vols., Dublin, 1839), I, 525-65.

NICHOLAS DONNELLY

Guillaume Dubois

A French cardinal and statesman, born at Brive, in Limousin, 1656; died at Versailles, 1723. He was the son of an honourable physician and received his first education from the Fathers of the Christian Doctrine in his native place, whence he went in 1672, as beneficiary, to the Collège Saint-Michel in Paris. He had been engaged some nine years in private teaching when he was appointed (1683) sub-preceptor to the Duke of Chartres, nephew of Louis XIV, the full tutorship following four years later. When the Duke of Chartres became Duke of Orléans (1700), Dubois was made his secretary. During the regency of Philippe d'Orléans he rose in rapid succession to the high positions of state councillor (1716), secretary of foreign affairs (1717), Archbishop of Cambrai (1720), cardinal and surintendant des postes (1721), member of the Conseil de régence, and soon after, ministre principal (1722). The French Academy admitted him the same year and the Assembly of the French Clergy elected him president in 1723, the year of his death.

Owing to his humble birth, his stanch opposition to Jansenism, and his bold reversal of the aristocratic regime prevalent under Louis XIV, Dubois was disliked by the noblemen of his day. On the authority of contemporary libels and Saint-Simon's memoirs, historians of France have long repeated against him such charges as corrupting the morals of his pupil, accepting money from England, seeking, though unworthy, ecclesiastical dignities, etc. The publication by Sévelinges of Dubois's memoirs and correspondence together with the careful study of contemporary documents by Seilhac, Wiesener, and Bliard — e. g. the diplomatic papers preserved in the archives of the French, English, and Spanish foreign offices — have thrown a new light on the subject and partly verified the words of Fontenelle at the time of the reception of Cardinal Dubois into the French Academy: "Les siècles suivants en sauront davantage; fiez-vous à eux". Far from catering to his pupil's wantonness, Dubois did what he could to check it, and his Plan d'éducation pour le duc de Chartres shows a competent and conscientious tutor. The expediency of his foreign policy, resulting in the Triple Alliance of France, England, and Holland against Spain, like the contrary policy of Cardinal de Bernis, must be largely a matter of opinion. In so far as Dubois was concerned, it was the best way of serving the interests of France and counteracting the intrigues of Alberoni. Stair and Stanhope had a high regard, almost amounting to friendship, for the minister of France, but on both sides the charge that bribery was resorted to is untrue. That Dubois was not set against the natural amity between France and Spain was shown later, when, after Alberoni's fall and the restoration of peace, he successfully negotiated the treaty of 1721 and the marriage of Louis XV with the Infanta and that of the Prince of the Asturias with Mlle de Montpensier. Dubois's career as a churchman is not above reproach. While there is no foundation for the oft-repeated assertion of his secret marriage, his gross licentiousness, and notorious impiety even at the hour of his death, still it cannot be denied that he sought and used ecclesiastical dignities principally as props to his political prestige. Tonsured at the age of thirteen he bethought himself of sacred Orders only in his old age, when, the better to secure the long coveted and long denied red hat, he asked for the Archbishopric of Cambrai merely as a stepping stone to the cardinalate.

The "Mémoires du cardinal Dubois" published by P. Lacroix (Paris, 1829) are apocryphal. His genuine writings were edited by Sévelinges: "Mémoires secrets et correspondance inédite du cardinal Dubois" (Paris, 1815).

SAINT-SIMON, Mémoires, ed. CHÉRUEL (Paris, 1858), with remarks of CHÉRUEL; Relations de Saint-Simon el de l'Abbé Dubois in Rev. Hist., I, 140; SEILHAC, L'Abbé Dobois, premier ministre de Louis XV (Paris, 1862); WIESENER, Le Régent, l'Abbé Dubois et les Anglais (Paris, 1893); BLIARD, Dubois, cardinal el premier ministre (Paris, 1902), reviewed by SHAHAN in Catholic Univ. Bulletin, VIII, 350. See also HARDWICKE, State Papers (London, 1778); COXE, Memoirs of the Life of Walpole (London, 1798); GRAHAM, The Stair Annals (Edinburgh, 1875); HASSALL, Alberoni and Dubois in Periods of European history (New York, 1903), VI, 25.

J. F. SOLLIER.

Jean-Antoine Dubois

French missionary in India, b. in 1765 at St. Remèze (Ardèche); d. in Paris, 17 Feb., 1848. The Abbé Dubois was a director of the Seminary of the Foreign Missions, a member of the Royal Societies of Great Britain and Paris, and of the Literary Society of Madras. At the outbreak of the French Revolution he went to India to preach Christianity to the natives, whose favour he soon won by his affability and patience. For their instruction he composed elementary treatises on Christian doctrine which won general commendation. Though he remained thirty-two years in that arduous field, his labours were all fruitless and he returned convinced that the conversion of the Hindus with the deep-rooted prejudices of centuries was impossible under the existing conditions. This opinion which he broached in "Letters on the State of Christianity in India" etc. (London, 1823), was vigorously attacked in England. Two Anglican ministers, James Hough and H. Townley, published, respectively, "A Reply to the Letters of the Abbé Dubois" etc. (London, 1824) and "An Answer to the Abbé Dubois" (London, 1824). "The Friend of India", a journal of Calcutta (1825), contained a refutation of his letters, to which the abbe rejoined in a letter of much gravity and moderation. It found its way into the "Bulletin des Sciences", May, 1825, and the first volume of the "Asiatic Journal" (1841). Besides these letters he wrote: "Description of the Character, Manners and Customs of the People of India, and of their Institutions, religious and civil" (London, 1816). This work was bought by the East India Company for twenty thousand francs and printed at their expense. The author published an enlarged edition in French under the title "Moeurs, institutions, et cérémonies des peuples de l'Inde" (Paris, 1825, 2 vols.), which is considered the best and most complete work on the subject. "Exposé de quelques-uns des principaux articles de la théologie des Brahmes" (Paris, 1825); "Le Pantcha-tantra ou les cinq ruses, fables du Brahme Vichnou-Sarma" (Paris, 1826). Abbé Dubois was one of the collaborators of the "Bulletin Universel des Sciences" of the Baron de Férussac.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE.

John Dubois

Third Bishop of New York, educator and missionary, b. in Paris, 24 August, 1764; d. in New York, 20 December, 1842. His early education was received at home until he was prepared to enter the Collége Louis­le­Grand, where he had for fellow-students Robespierre and Desmoulins. Ordained priest at the Oratorian Seminary of St-Magloire, 22 Sept., 1787, by Archbishop de Juigné, of Paris, he was appointed an assistant to the curé of St-Sulpice, and chaplain to the Sisters of Charity (Hospice des Petites Maisons). Forced in May, 1791, by the French Revolution to leave France, he escaped in disguise to America, and landed at Norfolk, Virginia, Aug., 1791, bearing commendatory letters from the Marquis de Lafayette to James Monroe, the Randolphs, Lees, Beverlys, and Patrick Henry. He was cordially received, resided for some time in the house of Mr. Monroe, received instruction in English from Patrick Henry, and even celebrated Mass in the State House at Richmond. In 1794 he became pastor of Frederick where he built the first church and ministered to Western Maryland and Virginia. His career as an educator began in 1808, when, joining the Society of St-Sulpice, he withdrew from the Frederick mission and opened a school on the mountain, at Emmitsburg, as a petit séminaire. This he soon discovered impracticable, and, in its place, founded there the present Mt. St. Mary's College. Father Dubois was also of invaluable assistance, material and spiritual, to Mother Seton, foundress of the American Sisters of Charity, when she established (1809) a convent of her community a short distance from the college.

On the death of the Rt. Rev. John Connolly, second Bishop of New York, 6 Feb., 1825, Father Dubois was chosen his successor and consecrated the third Bishop of New York by Archbishop Maréchal in Baltimore, 29 Oct., 1826. Three days later he took possession of his diocese, which covered the whole State of New York, and half the State of New Jersey, with a Catholic population of about 150,000, eighteen priests, and some twelve churches. A visitation of his diocese revealing the pressing need of priests and of a seminary, he went to France and Rome for aid in 1829, and obtained substantial help from the Society for the Propagation of the Faith and the Congregation of Propaganda. He made three unsuccessful attempts to establish a seminary. Fire destroyed one when just completed at Nyack; another projected on a site chosen in Brooklyn was never begun; and a third in Lafargeville, in the northern part of the State, was closed because too remote and inaccessible. Another serious problem confronted the bishop in the lay trustee system controlling the churches. On one occasion, when the trustees of the cathedral threatened to withhold his salary, he made this memorable reply "I am an old man, and do not need much. I can live in a basement or in a garret. But whether I come up from the basement or down from the garret, I shall still be your Bishop" (see Trusteeism; New York, Archdiocese of). Enfeebled by age and hard work, he asked for a coadjutor, the diocese having grown to include 38 churches, 12 stations, and 40 priests, and the Rev. John Hughes of Philadelphia was appointed titular Bishop of Basilinopolis and coadjutor of New York in 1837. Bishop Dubois's infirmities increasing, Bishop Hughes was made administrator in 1839, and the old bishop passed the last days of a life of apostolic zeal in retirement. His body rests in the crypt of St. Patrick's old Cathedral, New York.

      Shea, History of Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1890), III; Herbermann in U. S. Cath. Hist. Soc., Historical Records and Studies (New York, 1900), I, part II; Smith, The Catholic Church in New York (New York, 1905-8), I; Farley, The History of St. Patrick's Cathedral (New York, 1908); Mc Caffrey, The Jubilee of Mount St. Mary's (New York, 1859).

P.J. Hayes

Louis-Guillaume-Valentin Dubourg

Second Bishop of Louisiana and the Floridas, Bishop of Montauban, Archbishop of Besançon, b. at Cap François, Santo Domingo, 16 February, 1766; d. at Besançon, France, 12 December, 1833. His theological studies were made at Paris, where he was ordained in 1788 and entered the Company of Saint Sulpice. He was superior of the seminary of Issy when the French Revolution broke out, and retired at first to Bordeaux. In 1794 he emigrated to the United States where he was welcomed by Bishop Carroll. He was president of Georgetown College from 1796 to 1799. After an unsuccessful trip to Havana where he attempted to open a school, he returned to Baltimore and became the first superior of Saint Mary's College.

On 18 August, 1812, he was appointed Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Louisiana and the Floridas to succeed Bishop Peñalvar y Cardenas promoted (1801) to the archiepiscopal See of Guatemala. The position was by no means an easy one and Father Dubourg was forced, at the beginning of his administration to take up his residence outside New Orleans. However, he gradually overtcame his opponents. On 28 January, 1815, on the threshold of the New Orleans cathedral, he bestowed on General Jackson the laurels of victory.

After settling in a satisfactory way the affairs of the diocese Father Dubourg proceeded to Rome where he was consecrated Bishop of Louisiana and the Floridas, 24 September, 1815. He returned to America in 1817 and took up his residence in St. Louis where he founded a theological seminary and college at "The Barrens". He also founded the St. Louis Latin Academy which developed into the present well-known St. Louis University. The Religious of the Sacred Heart simultaneously opened their first American convent, St. Charles's Academy (1818), and soon after a second one at Florissant. These institutions gave a great impulse to religion in what was then known as Upper Louisiana. The bishop visited yearly the southern part of his diocese, and when Bishop Rosati was appointed his coadjutor, New Orleans became again his residence. In 1826 Bishop Dubourg went again to Europe. He was a brilliant and learned man, but was reluctant to enforce his authority against the cathedral trustees who continually opposed him; therefore he tendered his resignation of the See of New Orleans (November, 1826), thinking that another incumbent would be more successful.

He was not, however, allowed to live in retirement, but was transferred, 2 October, 1826, to the Diocese of Montauban; then on 15 February, 1833, he was promoted to the archiepiscopal See of Besançon. Archbishop Dubourg was one of the first patrons and beneficiaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, but was not, as has been said, its founder. This society was organized at a meeting held at Lyons by the Abbé Inglesi, Bishop Dubourg's vicar-general, but the chief rôle in its creation is due to a pious woman of Lyons, Pauline-Marie Jaricot (q. v.).

      Shea, History of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1890), III, passim; Idem, The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church in the United States (New York, 1886); Guasco, L'Œuvre de la Propagation de la Foi (Paris); Member of the Order of Mercy, Vie de M. Emery (Paris).

CÉlestin M. Chambon

St. Dubric

(DYFRIG, DUBRICIUS)

Bishop and confessor, one of the greatest of Welsh saints; d. 612. He is usually represented holding two crosiers, which signify his jurisdiction over the Sees of Caerleon and Llandaff. St. Dubric is first mentioned in a tenth-century MS. of the "Annales Cambriae", where his death is assigned to the year 612. This date appears also in the earliest life of the saint that has come down to us. It was written about 1133, to record the translation of his relics, and is to be found (in the form of "Lectiones") in the "Liber Landavensis". It may contain some genuine traditions, but as it appeared at least five hundred years after St. Dubric's death, it cannot claim to be historical. According to this account he was the son (by an unnamed father) of Eurddil, a daughter of Pebia Claforwg, prince of the region of Ergyng (Erchenfield in Herefordshire), and was born at Madley on the River Wye. As a child he was noted for his precocious intellect, and by the time he attained manhood was already known as a scholar throughout Britain. He founded a college at Henllan (Hentland in Herefordshire), where he maintained two thousand clerks for seven years. Thence he moved to Mochros (perhaps Moccas), on an island farther up the Wye, where he founded an abbey. Later on he became Bishop of Llandaff, but resigned his see and retired to the Isle of Bardsey, off the coast of Carnarvonshire. Here with his disciples he lived as a hermit for many years, and here he was buried. His body was translated by Urban, Bishop of Llandaff, to a tomb before the Lady-altar in "the old monastery" of the cathedral city, which afterwards became the cathedral church of St. Peter.

A few years after the "Liber Landavensis" was written, there appeared the "Historia Regum Britanniae" of Geoffrey of Monmouth, and this romantic chronicle is the source of the later and more elaborate legend of St. Dubric, which describes him as "Archbishop of Caerleon" and one of the great figures of King Arthur's court. Benedict of Gloucester and John de Tinmouth (as adapted by Capgrave) developed the fictions of Geoffrey, but their accounts are of no historical value. There is no record of St. Dubric's canonization. The "Liber Landavensis" assigns his death to 14 November, but he was also commemorated on 4 November. The translation of his body, which the same authority assigns to 23 May, is more usually kept on 29 May.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE.

Dubuque

Archdiocese of Dubuque (Dubuquensis), established, 28 July, 1837, created an archbishopric, 1893, comprises that part of Iowa, U.S.A., north of Polk, Jasper, Poweshiek, Iowa, Johnson, Cedar, and Scott, and east of Kossuth, Humboldt, Webster, and Boone Counties; an area of 18,084 sq. miles. The city is picturesquely situated on the Mississippi, at the base of noble bluffs that rise 300 feet above the river; many of these eminences are crowned with Catholic institutions and fine residences. The city is named after Julien Dubuque, a Canadian who lived there from 1788 to 1811, mining lead and trading with the Indians. His grave was marked by a cross and recently has been adorned with a rugged round tower of native limestone.

The first white men to visit Iowa were Jesuit Marquette and the Franciscan Hennepin. Later missionaries sent from Quebec laboured among the Indians of Wisconsin and Iowa, and kept alive the Faith among the scattered pioneers. Iowa became United States territory by the Louisiana Purchase, and in 1883, after treaty with the Indians, was opened to settlement. The lead mines at Dubuque attracted many, and the fertile prairies many more, and the population increased rapidly. The earliest Catholic settlers were French, German, and Irish, coming directly from their native lands or from the Eastern States; soon the whole state was dotted with thriving villages and prosperous farms. The attitude of non-Catholics has been uniformly friendly; the coming of a priest and the building of a church were generally met with favor and even with generous contributions. At present the Catholic people of the Archdiocese of Dubuque are about equally divided between agriculture and urban pursuits, and hold a prominent position in social, business, and professional life. The principal parishes outside the city of Dubuque presided over by irremovable rectors are Clinton, Cedar Rapids, Independence, Marshalltown, Waterloo, Dyersville, Mason City, Lansing, Ackley, Cascade, New Vienna, and Waukon.

The diocese of Dubuque was created in 1837 by a division of that of St. Louis, and embraced the area north of Missouri to Canada, and east of the Mississippi to the Missouri. One priest, a zealous Dominican, Samuel Mazzuchelli, ministered to a scattered population of less than 3000; three churches had been built; St. Raphael's at Dubuque, one in Davenport, and one at Sugar Creek, Lee County. Today in that same territory the church numbers 1,000,000 souls with two archbishops, a score of bishops, and thousands of priests and religious workers.

BISHOPS

(1) Pierre-Jean-Mathias Loras, the first bishop, was born in Lyons, France, 30 August, 1792; his father and uncle were guillotined during the Revolution. Mathias, who had as a schoolmate the Blessed Curé d'Ars, was ordained priest 12 November 1815, and for years was superior of the seminary of Largentiere. His zeal led him in 1829 to Mobile, Alabama, U.S.A., where he labored as pastor of Sand Spring Hill until 1837. Consecrated Bishop of Dubuque, at Mobile, 10 December, 1837, by Bishop Portier of Mobile, he familiarized himself by letters with the needs of his diocese, and went to France for priests; he returned 21 April, 1839, with six men of heroic mould, whose names are inseparably linked with the Catholic North-West: Joseph Cretin, who in 1851 was consecrated first Bishop of St. Paul, A. Ravoux, a noted Indian missionary, J.A.M.Pelamourgues, the patriarch-priest of Davenport, L. Galtier, R. Petiot, and J. Causse, pioneer priests of Minnesota. At Dubuque the bishop was received, 19 April, 1839, with great joy by all classes. His administration was marked by piety, zeal, and providential prudence. He multiplied his priests, encouraged immigration from the crowded cities of the East, welcomed the Trappists and various orders of sisters, chose and purchased tracts of land in the wilderness, that are now flourishing parishes. He was constantly engaged in visitation s and preaching missions. By personal example and formation of societies, he advanced the cause of temperance. In his work the generosity of the people was supplemented by contributions from France. In a letter of 1839 to the Society of the Propagation of the Faith of Lyons, he acknowledged a gift of $10,500 for his diocese. In 1850 St. Bernard's diocesan seminary was opened, which flourished for five years; among its students was Henry Cosgrove, who became Bishop of Davenport. In 1854 Bishop Loras visited Ireland and France in quest of priests. In 1855 he requested and obtained as coadjutor the Rev. Clement Smyth, superior of the Trappist community at New Melleray. Bishop Loras died at Dubuque, 20 February, 1858. Where he found one priest and a scattered little flock, he left 48 priests with 60 churches and 54,000 Catholics.

(2) Clement Smyth was b. 24 February, 1810, at Finlea, County Clare, Ireland; educated at Trinity College, Dublin, he entered the Cistercian Order and was ordained, 29 May, 1841. He was sent to the United States and founded New Melleray monastery, twelve miles from Dubuque, on land donated by Bishop Loras. He was consecrated, 3 May, 1857, by Archbishop Kenrick of St. Louis. Bishop Smyth was a man whose deep piety and boundless charity won the devotion of priests and people. He held a synod whose canons remained unaltered till 1902. Under him immigration continued, but owing to hard times and the Civil War, not much progress was made in church-building, but the spiritual edifice was strengthened. At his death, 22 September 1865, there were 90,000 Catholics in Iowa.

(3) Bishop Smyth was succeeded in 1866 by the Rt. Rev. John Hennessy, b. 20 August, 1825, in the County Limerick, Ireland. He entered Carondelet seminary near St. Louis, and was ordained in 1850. He became president of the seminary, and in 1858 was sent to Rome as representative Archbishop Kenrick. From 1860 to 1866 he was pastor of St. Joseph, Missouri. As a priest he manifested extraordinary prudence, learning, and eloquence. He was consecrated by Archbishop Kenrick, at Dubuque, 30 Sept., 1866. Bishop Hennessy received many priests from Germany and Ireland, and in 1873 founded St. Joseph's College and Theological Seminary in Dubuque. Existing parishes were systematically divided and he directed his energies especially to Christian education. Wherever possible schools were built and heroic sacrifices were made that every Catholic child should be educated by Catholic teachers. Considerable and continued opposition was offered by some Catholics, not only for economic reasons, but also because they considered the programme an attack on the public schools. The wisdom of the bishop was shown by the prosperous condition of the parochial schools, which at the time of his silver Jubilee, showed 12,257 pupils enrolled. Bishop Hennessy assisted at the Vatican Council, and was prominent in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. In 1893 he was made first Archbishop of Dubuque, with Davenport, Omaha, Wichita, and Sioux Falls as suffragan sees. His death occurred 4 March, 1900.

(4) The Most Rev. John J. Keane, titular Archbishop of Damascus and formerly Bishop of Richmond, Virginia, and Rector of Catholic University of America, was named to succeed Archbishop Hennessy, 24 July, 1900. Archbishop Keane was b. 12 Sept., 1839, at Ballyshannon, Co. Donegal, Ireland; ordained 2 July, 1866, at Baltimore; consecrated bishop at Baltimore, 25 August, 1878. Synods in 1902, 1905, and 1908 applied the Baltimore decrees to local conditions. Conferences of the clergy were held semi-annualy in every deanery. Complete annual reports from every parish were made through the chancery. His zeal for total abstinence founded an archdiocesan union, and in the field of education he encouraged postgraduate courses for priests, doubled the faculty and buildings of St. Joseph's College, the preparatory seminary of the archdiocese, which now enrolls 200 classical students, established a missionary band of diocesan priests, welcomed the Sisters of the Good Shepherd and the Sisters of the Order of St. Dominic, and the Brothers of Mary. Thus with indefatigable zeal he continued the work of his predecessors. In 1902 the western portion of the archdiocese was erected into the new Diocese of Sioux City.

Among the early missionaries and priests were Rev. John McMahon, C.P. Fitzmaurice, Daniel Maloney, Maurice Flavin, John Shields, James O'Gorman, who became vicar Apostolic at Omaha, M. Flannery, A.Hattneberger, H. Meis, Charles McGauran, John Brazil, T.M. Lenihan, later bishop of Cheyenne, C. Johannes, Patrick McCabe, and T. Donahue. Prominent among Catholic laymen were: Charles Corkery, Postmaster under President Buchanan, Patrick Quigley, Gen. Geo.W. Jones, United States Senator, 1848-1859, and Minister to New Granada, Dennis A. Mahoney, Eugene Shine, Maurice Brown, Thomas Connolly, Cornelius Mullen, Patrick Clark, Gen. John Lawler, of Prairie-du-Chen, who gave many church sites in Iowa, Senas Huegal, Anton Heeb, Gerard Becker, Charles Gregoire, John Mullaney,Wm. Ryan, Wm. Neuman, and David Hennessey.

The Sisters of Charity of the B.V M. went to Dubuque in 1844 from Philadelphia. The mother-house is now located there and they conduct two academies and eleven schools in various centres, besides having sent communities to four other states. The Sisters of Mercy located in 1868 in Davenport, and now have independent houses in Dubuque, Cedar Rapids, and Independence. The Presentation Nuns arrived from Ireland in 1875, and have 65 members. The Visitation Nuns conduct an academy in Dubuque; they number 31 members. The Sisters of St. Francis came from Westphalia, Germany, and 320 of them are employed in schools throughout Iowa. Other sisterhoods represented in the archdiocese are Third Order of St. Dominic, Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi, M.C., School Sisters of St. Francis, Sisters of the Holy Ghost, Sisters of the Holy Humility of Mary, and the School Sisters of Notre Dame.

STATISTICS

Official reports for 1908 give these figures: 222 diocesan and 9 regular priests, 165 parish churches, 63 mission churches, 50 chapels (in religious institutions); 1 college for men with 380 students; 25 academies for higher education of young women, attended by 4,000; 96 parochial schools, with 25,000 pupils; 1 orphanage with 225 inmates; 7 hospitals each accommodating 30-150 patients; one industrial home with 50 inmates; one home of the Good Shepherd. Catholic population, 111,112 in a total of 693,400. About 650 sisters of religious communities are engaged in teaching, and about 130 are in hospitals and other charitable work.

SHEA, History of the Catholic Church in U.S. (New York, 1889-1892); de Cailly, Life of Bishop Loras (New York, 1897); Kempker, History of Catholics in Iowa (Iowa City, 1887); Souvenir Volume of Silver Jubilee of Archbishop Hennessy; Souvenir Volume of Installation of Archbishop Keane; Reuss, Biographical Cyclopedia of Catholic Hierarchy in the U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898).

J.C. STUART

Fronton du Duc

(Called in Latin Ducæus.)

A French theologian and Jesuit, b. at Bordeaux in 1558; d. at Paris, 25 September, 1624. At first he taught in various colleges of the Society and wrote for the dramatic representations encouraged by the Jesuits the "Histoire tragique de la pucelle de Domrémy, autrement D'Orléans" (Nancy, 1581). which was acted at Pont-à-Mousson before Charles III, Duke of Lorraine. At a later date he took part in the theological discussions of the age and is the author of "Inventaires des faultes, contradictions, faulses allégations du Sieur Plessis, remarquées en son livre de la Sante Eucharistie, par les théologiens de Bordeaux" (Bordeaux, 1599-1601). This is one of the many refutations of the treatise on the Eucharist issued in 1598 by the Huguenot theologian Du Plessis-Mornay. The Protestant publicist made a reply to which Fronton de Duc rejoined in 1602.

At the suggestion of Casaubon, Henry IV contemplated the publication of manuscripts of the royal library. The clergy of France decided to confide the revision of the Greek Fathers to the Jesuits, and Fronton du Duc was chosen by the Society to labour on this project. Accordingly he published the works of St. John Chrysostom (Paris, 1609-1624) and a "Bibliotheca veterum Patrum" (Paris, 1624, 2 vols. in folio). The "Bibliotheca" contains a large number of the Greek Fathers with Latin translations (see the list in Sommervogel, III, 245), and serves as a supplement to the great collection of Margarin de la Bigne known as the "Sacra Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum". After the death of Fronton du Duc there was issued an edition of Nicephorus Callistus (Paris, 1620, 2 vols. in folio) which he had undertaken. This edition follows a Vienna manuscript that had belonged to the library of Matthias Corvinus; its publication had been delayed by a series of curious complications in which the political schemes of Richelieu were involved. Fronton du Duc had also occupied himself with the Greek texts of the Bible and had begun a revision of the text, but this was not completed. Librarian from 1604 of the Collège de Clermont, he reorganized the library, which had been scattered during the period in which the Jesuits had been obliged to abandon the school. While holding this position he also taught (1618-23) positive theology.

Oudin, in Nicéron, Memoires pour servir à l'historie des hommes illustres de la république des lettres (Paris, 1737), XXXVIII, 103; Sommervogel, Bibliothéque de la c. de J. (Paris, 1897), III, 233-249.

PAUL LEJAY

Charles Dufresne Du Cange

Historian and philologist, b. at Amiens, France, 18 Dec., 1610; d. at Paris, 1688. His father, who was a magistrate, had him educated by the Jesuits at Amiens, and the young man afterwards studied law at Orléans and was admitted to the Bar before the Parlement of Paris, 11 Ausust, 1631. But the legal profession failing to satisfy him, he returned to Amiens, married there in 1638 and in 1645 purchased the position of Treasurer of France held by his father-in-law. Obliged to leave Amiens in 1668 on account of the plague, he settled in Paris, where he died. Neither his official duties nor his family cares (he was the father of ten children) prevented him from following scholarly pursuits. Conversant with many languages, he was consulted on all sides, and he obtained much information through his correspondence. His unremitting energy was largely expended on the history of France and that of Constantinople. To insure a solid basis for his researches, he began by mastering the languages of the texts and was unceasing in his efforts to increase his knowledge of Byzantine Greek and Low Latin.

Two great and useful works were the outcome of this preparation and even yet suffice to secure the scholarly reputation of their author; they were the "glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae latinitatis" (Paris, 3 vols. fol. 1678; new edition with addenda by Dom Carpentier, Paris, 7 vols., 4to, 1840-1850; 10 vols., 1882-1887), and the "Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis" (Paris, 2 vols. fol. 1688). Chief among his other works are: "Histoire de l'Empire de Constantinople sous les empereurs francois" (Paris, 1657, 1 vol. fol.); "Traité historique du chef de saint Jean-Baptiste" (Paris, 1666, 4to); "Histoire de Saint Louis" (Paris, 1688, 2 vols. fol.); the "Historia Byzantina" (Paris, 1680, 2 vols. fol.), editions of the Byzantine historians, notably of Zonaras (Paris, 1686, 2 vols. fol.); and the "Chronicon Paschale" (Paris, 1689, fol.). He left many manuscripts which, after being widely scattered, were collected toward the middle of the eighteenth century by his grand-nephew Dufresne d'Aubigny and are now nearly all preserved in the National Library, Paris. From these have been compiled the "Histoire de la ville d'Amiens (published by Hardouin at Amiens, 1840) and "Les familles d'outre-mer" (published by Rey in the "Documents inédits de l'histoire de France", Paris, 1869).

PAUL LEJAY.

Duccio di Buoninsegna

Painter, and founder of the Sienese School, b. about 1255 or 1260, place not known; d. 3 August, 1319. About this time Siena was at the zenith of her political power. She had just defeated Florence on the field of Montaperti (4 September, 1260), and an era of marvellous development followed this conquest. Then was begun the huge task of building the cathedral, where, in 1266, was commenced the incomparable pulpit sculptured by Nicholas of Pisa, and it was under these flourishing conditions that Duccio received his artistic education. However, he owed nothing to the Gothic style nor to the naturalistic renaissance of Nicholas of Pisa: he allied himself exclusively with Byzantine tradition. Duccio has been called the "Last of the Greeks", and his genius consisted in giving exquisite expression to the refined sentiment of the masters of Byzantium, discovering its original meaning despite the barbarous, hideous imitations made by a degenerate school.

Duccio is first mentioned in 1278, when he was engaged upon minor work, such as painting the coffers of the archives and the tablettes (memorandum-books) of the Biccherna, one of them for the year 1293 now in the Industrial Museum of Berlin. But his great work at this time was the famous "Madonna de' Ruccellai" -- one of the most illustrious specimens of Italian painting -- preserved at Florence in a side-chapel of Santa Maria Novella and, on the authority of Vasari, so long considered one of Cimabue's master-pieces. But that the painting was Duccio's is now beyond question, as Milanesi has published the text of a contract drawn up for this picture, 15 April, 1285, between the artist and the rectors of the Confraternity of the Virgin. Although still hieratical and archaic, Duccio's "Madonna", when compared, for instance, with that of Guido of Siena, painted in 1221 and shown to-day in the Palazzo Pubblico of Siena, seems fully to deserve its celebrity.

But it was in 1311 that Duccio achieved his principal work, the glory of which is destined to remain traditional, the great reredos for the high altar of the Siena cathedral. This panel, removed in the fifteenth century, may now be seen in the museum of the Opera del Duomo. The day of its installation was observed as a public feast; shops were closed and bells were rung and the people of the city, carrying lighted candles, solemnly escorted the picture from the artist's residence at the Porta Stalloreggi to the cathedral. This painting was indeed a national masterpiece and in this regard is comparable only to the reredos by Van Eyck in Flemish painting. The two sides represent the two Testaments of the school. The back comprises twenty-six scenes from the life of Jesus between the entry into Jerusalem and the Ascension. The steps, now taken apart, were decorated with twenty other scenes representing Christ's childhood, and His miracles, and the life of the Virgin. In fact, the theme was the same as that treated by Giotto in 1305 in the Arena of Padua. But Duccio consulted Byzantine formularies only, and his compositions resemble the famous miniatures of the "Evangelistarium" of Rossano, or those of the great Benedictine school of Mont' Amiata. However, apart from his perfect taste in colour and in style, Duccio excelled in the essentially Greek elegance of his portrayal of ordinary life. He abounds in genre pictures as pure as some of the selections in the Anthology. The scene of "Peter before the High-Priest", the dialogue of the holy women with the angel at the Sepulchre, and the "Pilgrims of Emmaus" are models of poetic conception expressed in a familiar, true-to-life, lyric fashion. On the front of the great panel is the "Madonna Maestà" (Majesty), which is in reality the "Madonna de' Ruccellai" more amply, richly, and harmoniously developed. Never did Byzantine painting attain greater plasticity of expression. But here the form is animated by a new sentiment, a tenderness that manifests itself in the distich engraved on the step of the Virgin's throne: --

Duccio painted only frame (and panel) pictures and, without doubt, miniatures, and hence the oblivion into which he fell in a country where monumental painting alone is glorified. Nevertheless his is the first of the great names in Italian painting. He preceded Giotto by a score of years and had the honour of founding an original Sienese school at a time when there were as yet no painters in Florence: since, in 1285, it was to him that the Florentines had to have recourse. And the most magnificent work of the Sienese School, the "Maest..." by Simone di Martino, in the Palazzo Pubblico (1315) is but an enlargement of Duccio's. His type of beauty and his poetic ideal were indelibly impressed upon this charming school. Duccio seems to have been gay and light-hearted. In 1313 he was imprisoned for debt and at another time fined for refusing to mount guard. Some of his lesser works are preserved in various collections in the Siena Museum, the National Gallery, London, and at Windsor.

MILANESI, Documenti per la storia dell'arte senese (Siena, 1854), I; CROWE AND CAVALCASELLE, Storia della pittura in Italia (2nd ed., Florence, 1899), III; LANGTON DOUGLAS, History of Siena (London, 1902); VENTURI, Storia dell'arte Italiana (Milan, 1907), V; PERATÉ, Duccio in Gazette des Beaux-Arts (Feb. and Sept., 1893); LISINI, Notizie di Duccio pittore (Bollettino senese di storia patria, 1898); LANGTON DOUGLAS, Duccio in Monthly Review (Aug., 1903); RICHTER, Lectures on the National Gallery (London, 1898).

LOUIS GILLET

Philippine-Rose Duchesne

Founder in America of the first houses of the society of the Sacred Heart, born at Grenoble, France, 29 August, 1769; died at St. Charles, Missouri, 18 October, 1852. She was the daughter of Pierr-Francois Duchesne, an eminent lawyer. Her mother was a Périer, ancestor of Casimir Périer, President of France in 1894. She was educated by the visitation Nuns, entered that order, saw its dispersion during the Reign of Terror, vainly attempted the re-establishment of the convent of Ste-Marie-d'en-Haunt, near Grenoble, and finally, in 1804, accepted the offer of Mother Barat to receive her community into the Society of the Sacred Heart. From early childhood the dream of Philippine had been the apostolate of souls: heathen in distant lands, the neglected and poor at home. Nature and grace combined to fit her for this high vocation; education, suffering, above all, the guidance of Mother Barat trained her to become the pioneer of her order in the New world. In 1818 Mother Duchesne set out with four companions for the missions of America. Bishop Dubourg welcomed her to New Orleans, whence she sailed up the Mississippi to St. Louis, finally settling her little colony at St. Charles. "Poverty and Christian heroism are here", she wrote, "and trials are the riches of priests in this land." Cold, hunger, and illness; opposition, ingratitude, and calumny, all that came to try the courage of this missioner, served only to fire her lofty and indomitable spirit with new zeal for the spread of truth. Other foundations followed, at Florissant, Grand Côteau, New Orleans, St. Louis, St. Michael; and the approbation of the society in 1826 by Leo XII recognized the good being done in these parts. She yearned to teach the poor Indians, and old and broken as she was, she went to labour among the Pottowatomies at Sugar Creek, thus realizing the desire of her life. Stirred by the recitals of Father De Smet, S.J., she turned her eyes towards the Rocky Mountain missions; but Providence led her back to St. Charles, where she died. Thirty-four years of mission toil, disappointment, endurance, self-annihilation sufficed, indeed, to prove the worth of this valiant daughter of Mother Barat. She had opened the road, others might walk in it; and the success hidden from her eyes was well seen later by the many who rejoiced in the rapid spread of her order over North and South America. Sincere, intense, generous, austere yet affectionate, endowed with large capacity for suffering and work, Mother Duchesne's was a stern character that needed and took the moulding of Mother Barat. Preliminary steps for her beatification have already been taken.

CATHERINE M. LOWTH

Ven. James Duckett

Martyr, b. at Gilfortrigs in the parish of Skelsmergh in Westmoreland, England, date uncertain, of an ancient family of that county; d. 9 April, 1601. He was a bookseller and publisher in London. His godfather was the well-known martyr James Leybourbe of Skelsmergh. He seems, however, to have been brought up a Protestant, for he was converted while an apprentice in London by reading a Catholic book lent him by a friend. Before he could be received into the Church, he was twice imprisoned for not attending the Protestant service, and was obliged to compound for his apprenticeship and leave his master. He was finally reconciled by a venerable priest named Weekes who was imprisoned in the Gatehouse at Westminster. After two or three years he married a Catholic widow, but out of his twelve years of married life, no less than nine were spent in prison, owing to his zeal in propagating Catholic literature and his wonderful constancy in his new-found faith. His last apprehension was brought about by Peter Bullock, a bookbinder, who betrayed him in order to obtain his own release from prison. His house was searched on 4 March, 1601, Catholic books were found there, and Duckett was at once thrown into Newgate. At his trial, Bullock testified that he had bound various Catholic books for Duckett, which the martyr acknowledged to be true. The jury found him not guilty, but Judge Popham at once stood up and bade them consider well what they did, for Duckett had had bound for him Bristowe's "motives", a controversial work peculiarly odious to Anglicans on account of its learning and cogency. The jury thereupon reversed its verdict and brought in the prisoner guilty of felony. At the same time three priests, Page, Tichborne, and Watkinson were condemned to death. Bullock did not save himself by his treachery, for he was conveyed in the same cart as Duckett to Tyburn, where both were executed, 19 April, 1601. There is an account, written by his son, the Prior of the English Carthusians at Nieuport (Flanders) of James Duckett's martyrdom. On the way to Tyburn he was given a cup of wine; he drank, and desired his wife to drink to Peter Bullock, and freely to forgive him. At the gallows, his last thoughts were for his betrayer. He kissed him and implored him to die in the Catholic Faith.

BEDE CAMM

Phillippe-Charles-Jean-Baptiste-Tronson Du Coudray

Soldier, b. at Reims, France, 8 September, 1738; d. at Philadelphia, U.S.A., 11 September, 1777. He was educated for the army and showed great merit as an engineer. He was adjutant­general of artillery and considered one of the best military experts in France when, in 1776, he volunteered to go to America to assist the colonists in their revolt against England. Silas Deane and Benjamin Franklin, the American agents, promised him a commission as major-general with command of the artillery. This stipulation gave great offence to the officers already attached to the army when he arrived from France, in May, 1777, with twenty-nine other officers and twelve sergeants of artillery. Several of the more prominent threatened to resign. As a compromise he was made inspector-general 11 August, 1777, with the rank of major-general, and assigned to command the works along the Delaware. On 11 Sept., 1777, he was drowned while crossing the Schuylkill River at Philadelphia, the horse on which he was seated becoming frightened and dragging him overboard. Congress gave him an official funeral and attended his requiem Mass, 18 Sept., 1777, in St. Mary's church. This was one of the four occasions on which Congress was officially present at Mass during the Revolution, the others being the requiem on 8 May, 1780, for Don Juan de Miralles, the agent of the Spanish Government, and the Te Deums on 4 July, 1779, and 4 November, 1781, all being celebrated at St. Mary's, Philadelphia. Du Coudray was buried in St. Mary's churchyard, but the grave is now unknown.

      Griffen, Catholics and the American Revolution (Ridley Park, Pennsylvania, 1907); Cyclopedia of Am. Biog., s. v.; Shea, Hist. of Cath. Ch. in U. S. (New York, 1889-92); Heitman, Historical Register of the Officers of the Continental Army (Washington, 1893).

Thomas F. Meehan

Venerable John Duckett

A Martyr, probably a grandson of Venerable James Duckett, born at Underwinder, in the parish of Sedbergh, Yorkshire, in 1603; died 7 September, 1644. He was ordained priest in 1639 and afterwards went to Paris where he studied three years in the College of Arras. He had an extraordinary gift of prayer, and while yet a student would spend whole nights in contemplation. On his way to the English mission, he spent two months in spiritual exercises, under the direction of his uncle, the Carthusian prior at Nieuport. He laboured for about a year in Durham and was taken near Whisingham on his way to baptize two children, 2 July, 1644. The place which tradition declares to be that of his arrest is now marked by a tall stone cross. Carried to Sunderland, he was examined by a Parliamentary Committee of sequestrators, and placed in irons. He confessed his priesthood and was thereupon sent up to London with Father Ralph Corbie, S. J. (q. v.), who had been arrested about the same time near Newcastle-on-Tyne. They were committed to Newgate, and edified the crowds of Catholics who flocked to see them by their joyousness, their sanctity, and their longing to suffer for Christ. A reprieve for one of them having been obtained, each refused to take it for himself. On his way to execution, Duckett astonished all by his supernatural joy; comforting those who wept for him, he said smiling: "Why weep you for me who am glad at heart of this happy day?" His jailers even were so struck by his gladness that they exclaimed "assuredly this man dies for a good cause". He suffered with Father Corbie, at Tyburn. In a farewell letter to the Bishop of Chalcedon, he wrote on the eve of his martyrdom: "I fear not death, nor I contemn not life. If life were my lot, I would endure it patiently; but if death, I shall receive it joyfully, for that Christ is my life, and death is my gain. Never since my receiving of Holy Orders did I so much fear death as I did life, and now, when it approacheth can I faint?"

POLLEN, Acts of English Martyrs (London, 1891); CAMM, A North Country Martyr, the Venerable John Duckett (with portrait, London); CHALLONER, Memoirs (London, 1741); GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., II.

BEDE CAMM.

Francis Bennon Ducrue

Missionary in Mexico, b. at Munich, Bavaria. of French parents, 10 June 1721; d. there 30 March, 1779. He became a member of the Society of Jesus in 1738, and ten years later was sent to California, where he laboured zealously until the expulsion of the order in 1767. When that untoward event took place, Ducrue was the superior of all the California missions. He submitted uncomplainingly to the decree of expulsion and even cooperated with the royal commission in enforcing its provisions. The Jesuits withdrew, taking with them only their clothes and a few books; this was all the wealth they carried away from California after seventy years of work in its missions. Ducrue eventually returned to his native land. He wrote in Latin "A Journey from California through the district of Mexico to Europe in the year 1767" which was translated into German for the "Nachrichten von verschiedenen Ländern des spaniscvhen Amerika" of Christoph von Murr (vol.XII, p. 217-276), and was translated into French and published by Fr. carayon in his "Documents Inédits" (Paris, 1876). Murr also gives some interesting specimens of the language of California, which were communicated to him by Ducrue.

Sommervogel, Bibl. de la c. de J., III, 253, and Supplement; Michaud, Biog. Univ. (Paris, 1852, XI, 419; Carayon, Documents Inédits (Poitiers, 1876); De Backer, Bibl. des éscriv. de la c. de J., I, 1677; Bancroft, North Mexican States and Texas (San Francisco; 1884), I, 476, 478; Clinch, California and Its Missions (San Francisco, 1884), I, ch. ix, 178 sqq.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Beda Franciscus Dudik

Moravian historian, b. at Kojetein near Kremsier, Moravia, 29 January, 1815; d. as abbot and titular bishop at the monastery of Raigern, 18 January, 1890. After studying at the philosophical school at Brünn he attended the University of Olmutz. In 1836 he entered the Benedictine Order and in 1840 was ordained priest at Raigem. From this latter date until 1854 he taught first the classical languages and then history at the gymnasium of Brünn. In 1855 he became Privatdozent for historical research at the University of Vienna; in 1859 he was appointed historiographer of Moravia, and in 1865 was made a member of the Academy of Sciences of Vienna. For purposes of historical research he went in 1851 to Sweden, in 1852 to Rome, in 1870 to France, Belgium, and Holland, in 1874 to Russia, a country which he later repeatedly visited. Between the years 1853 and 1859 he established at Vienna the main historical library of the Teutonic Order. Dudik was a prolific writer and diligent investigator; his works have a lasting value on account of the sources from which he drew. His chief works in chronological order are: "Geschichte des Benediktinerstiftes Raigern" (2 vols., Brünn, 1849; 2nd ed., Vienna, 1868); "Mährens Geschichts-quellen" (Brünn, 1850); "Forschungenin Schweden fur Mährens Geschichte" (Brünn, 1852); "Iter Romanum" (2 vols., Vienna, 1855); "Des Herzogtums Troppau ehemalige Stellung zur Markgrafschaft Mähren" (Vienna, 1857); "Waldsteins Korrespondenz" (Vienna, 1865-66); "Waldstein von seiner Enthebung bis zur abermaligen Uebernahme des Armeekommandos" (Vienna, 1858); "Des hohen Deutschen Ritterordens Münzsammlung in Wien" (Vienna, 1858, a special edition with 32 copper plates); "Kleinodien des Deutschen Ritterordens" (Vienna, 1866); "Archive im Konigreich Galizien und Lodomerien" (Vienna, 1867); "Erinnerungen aus dem Feldzug in Italien 1866" (Vienna, 1867); "Preussen in Mähren im Jahre 1742" (Vienna, 1869); "Schweden in Böhmen und Mähren 1640-1660" (Vienna, 1879); "Geschichtliche Entwickelung dor Buchdruckerkunst in Mähren von 1486 bis 1621" (Brünn, 1879).

Dudik's most important publication is: "Mährens allgemeine Geschichte" (12 vols., Brünn, 1860-89); it treats the history of Moravia up to 1350. Volumes VIII-X, which give an account of Moravia during the period of the Przemyslian dynasty, have been translated into Czech. He also published several papers in the transactions of the Academy of Sciences; in vol. LIV appeared: "Korrespondenz Ferdinands II. mit seinen Beichtvätern Becanus and Lamormain".

Revue benedictine, VII, 179.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Duel

(Duellum, old form of bellum).

This word, as used both in the ecclesiastical and civil criminal codes today, generally signifies every contest with deadly weapons which takes place by agreement between two persons on account of some private quarrel. Thus a contest with weapons is essential to the conception of a duel. Further, the contest must take place by agreement, and the weapons used must be capable of inflicting deadly wounds. Although generally demanded by custom, similarity of weapons is not essential; neither are witnesses, seconds, etc. Finally it is essential to a duel that it take place on account of some private matter, such as wounded honour. Consequently the customary duel of today differs from those public duels which took place for some public reason by the arrangement of the authorities, as the conflict between David and Goliath. Between contending nations there is no higher court than the appeal to arms; therefore war must decide, and there may be instances in which it is allowable to substitute for a battle between two armies a contest between two persons selected for the purpose.

HISTORY

Duelling was unknown to the civilized nations of antiquity. The contests of the Roman gladiators were not, like the duels of today, a means of self-defence, but bloody spectacles to satisfy the curiosity and cruelty of an effeminate and degenerate people. On the other hand the custom of duelling existed among the Gauls and Germans from the earliest era, as Diodorus Siculus (Biblioth. history Lib. V, ch. xxviii), Velleius Paterculus (Histor. rom., II, cxviii) and others relate. The duel is, therefore, undoubtedly of heathen origin, and was so firmly rooted in the customs of the Gauls and Germans that it persisted among them even after their conversion. The oldest known law of Christian times that permitted the judicial duel is that of the Burgundian King Gundobald (d. 516). With few exceptions the judicial duel is mentioned in all old German laws as a legal ordeal. It rested on a twofold conviction. It was believed, first, that God could not allow the innocent to be defeated in a duel; hence it was held that the guilty party would not dare primarily to appeal to the judgment of God in proof of his innocence and then enter upon the fight under the weight of perjury; the fear of Divine wrath would discourage him and make victory impossible.

The Church soon raised her voice against duelling. St. Avitus (d. 518) made an earnest protest against the law of the above-mentioned Gundobald, as is related by Agobard (d. 840), who in a special work on the subject points out the opposition between the law of Gundobald and the clemency of the Gospel; God might very easily permit the defeat of the innocent. The popes also at an early date took a stand against duelling. In a letter to Charles the Bald, Nicolas I (858-67) condemned the duel (monomachia) as a tempting of God. In the same century his example was followed by Stephen VI, later by Alexander II and Alexander III, Celestine III, Innocent III and Innocent IV, Julius II, and many others. In addition to the judicial, non-judicial combats also occurred, in which men arbitrarily settled private grudges or sought to revenge themselves. The tournaments, especially, were often used to satisfy revenge; on account of this misuse the Church early issued ordinances against the excesses committed at tournaments, although these were not always obeyed. The more the judicial combat fell into disuse, the more the old instinct of the Germanic and Gallic peoples, by which each man sought to gain his rights with weapon in hand, showed itself in personal contests and at tournaments. From the middle of the fifteenth century duelling over questions of honour increased so greatly, especially in the Romanic countries, that the Council of Trent was obliged to enact the severest penalties against it. It decreed that "the detestable custom of duelling which the Devil had originated, in order to bring about at the same time the ruin of the soul and the violent death of the body, shall be entirely uprooted from Christian soil" (Sess XXIV, De reform, c. xix). It pronounced the severest ecclesiastical penalties against those princes who should permit duelling between Christians in their territories. According to the council those who take part in a duel are ipso facto excommunicated, and if they are killed in the duel they are to be deprived of Christian burial. The seconds and all those who advised the duel or were present at it are also excommunicated. These ecclesiastical penalties were at a later date repeatedly renewed and even in parts made more severe. Benedict XIV decreed that duellists should also be denied burial by the Church even if they did not die on the duelling ground and had received absolution before death. All these penalties are substantially in force today. Pius IX in the "Constitutio Apostolicae Sedis" of 12 October, 1869, decreed the penalty of excommunication against "all who fight duels, or challenge to a duel or accept such challenge; as well as against all who are accessory to the or who in any way abet or encourage the same; and finally against those who are present at a duel as spectators [de industria spectantes], or those who permit the same, or do not prevent it, whatever their rank, even if they were kings or emperors".

Like the Church, the State also took steps against the evil of duelling. In 1608 an edict against the practice was issued by Henry IV of France. Whoever killed his opponent in a duel was to be punished with death; severe penalties were also enacted against the sending of a challenge and the acceptance of the same. Unfortunately transgressors against this law were generally pardoned. In 1626, during the reign of Henry's successor, Louis XIII, the laws against duelling were made more stringent and were strictly carried out. Notwithstanding these measures the custom of duelling increased alarmingly in France. The great number of French noblemen who fell in duels about the middle of the seventeenth century, is shown by the statement of the contemporary writer Theophile Raynaud that within thirty years more men of rank had been killed in duels than would have been needed to make up an entire army. Olier, the founder of the Congregation of Saint-Sulpice, with the aid of St. Vincent de Paul, formed an association of distinguished noblemen, the members of which signed the following obligation: "The undersigned publicly and solemnly make known by this declaration that they will refuse every form of challenge, will for no cause whatever enter upon a duel, and will in every way be willing to give proof that they detest duelling as contrary to reason, the public good, and the laws of the State, and as incompatible with salvation and the Christian religion, without, however, relinquishing the right to avenge in every legal way any insult offered them as far as position and birth make such action obligatory." Louis XIV aided these efforts at reform by the severe enactment against duelling which he issued early in his reign. For a long time after this duelling was infrequent in France.

In other countries too severe measures were taken against the constantly spreading evil. In 1681 the Emperor Leopold I forbade the fighting of duels under the severest penalties; Maria Theresa ordered not only the challenger and the challenged but also all who had any share in a duel to be beheaded, and in the reign of the Emperor Joseph II duellists received the punishment of murderers. Frederick the Great of Prussia tolerated no duellists in his army. The present penal code of Austria makes imprisonment the punishment of duelling; the penal code of the German Empire commands confinement in a fortress. The penalty is, without doubt, entirely insufficient and constitutes a form of privilege for the person who kills his adversary in a duel. Theoretically these penal laws are also applicable to the respective armies, but unfortunately in the case of officers they are not carried out; indeed, up to the present time, an officer who refuses to fight a duel in Germany and Austria is in danger of being dismissed from the army. In 1896 when, in consequence of the fatal issue of a duel, the Reichstag by a large majority called upon the Government to proceed by all the means in its power against the practice of duelling, as opposed to the criminal codes the emperor issued a cabinet order on 1 January, l897, which established courts of honour to deal with disputes in the army concerning questions of honour. Unfortunately the decree leaves it open to the court of honour to permit or even to command a duel to take place. Furthermore, on 15 January, 1906, General von Einem, Prussian Minister of War, stated that the principle of the duel was still in force, and Chancellor von Bulow added to this:

". . . the of army officers can tolerate no member in its ranks who is not ready, should necessity arise, to defend his honour by force of arms."

In the army, as a result of this principle, a conscentious opponent of duelling is constantly exposed to the danger of being expelled for refusing to fight. In England duelling is almost unknown, and no duel has occurred, it is said, in the British army for the last eighty years. English jurisprudence contains no special ordinances against duelling, the wounding or killing of another in a duel is punishable according to common law. On the Continent also public opinion on the subject of duelling seems to be gradually changing. The demand for the abolition, even in the army, of this abuse is growing louder and louder. Some years ago, at the instance of the Infante Alfonso of Bourbon and Austria-Este, an anti-duelling league was formed in order to carry on systamatically the opposition to duelling. A preliminary convention, held at Frankfort-on-the Main in the spring of 1901, issued an appeal for support in its struggle against this evil. In a few weeks a thousand signatures were received, mostly those of men of influence from the most varied ranks of society. A convention to draw up a constitution met at Cassel 11 January, 1902, and Prince Carl zu Lowenstein was elected president. A committee was also appointed to direct affairs and to conduct the agitation. The league has made most satisfactory progress; in 1908 it established a permanent bureau at Leipzig. Concerning the aims of the league the declaration subscribed by the members states the following:

The undersigned herewith declare their rejection, on principle, of duelling as a custom repugnant to reason, conscience, the demands of civilization existing laws, and the common good of society and the State.

WRONGFULNESS OF DUELLING

After what has been said above there can be no doubt that duelling is contrary to the ordinances of the Catholic Church and of most civilized countries. By the wording of its ordinance against duelling, the Council of Trent plainly indicated that duelling was essentially wrong and since then theologians have almost universally charactorized it as a sinful and reprehensible course of action. However there were always a few scholars who held the opinion that cases might arise in which the unlawfulness of duelling could not be proved with certainty by mere reason. But this opinion has not been tenable since Pope Benedict XIV in the Bull "Detestabilem" of the year 1752 condemned the following propositions:

• "A soldier would be blameless and not liable to punishment for sending or accepting a challenge if he would be considered timid and cowardly, worthy of contempt, and unfit for military duty, were he not to send a challenge or accept such, and who would for this reason lose the position which supported him and his family, or who would be obliged to give up forever the hope of befitting and well-earned advancement."
• "Those persons are excusable who to defend their honour or to escape the contempt of men accept or send a challenge when they know positively that the duel will not take place but will be prevented by others."
• "A general or officer who accepts a challenge through fear of the loss of his reputation and his position does not come under the ecclesiastical punishment decreed by the Church for duellists."
• "It is permissible under the natural conditions of man to accept or send a challenge in order to save one's fortune, when the loss of it can not be prevented by any other means."
• "This permission claimed for natural conditions can also be applied to a badly guided state in which especially, justice is openly denied by the remissness or malevolence of the authorities."

Like his predecessors, Leo XIII in his letter "Pastoralis officii", of 12 September, 1891, to the German and Austro-Hungarian bishops, laid down the following principles: "From two points of view the Divine law forbids a man as a private person to wound or kill another, excepting when he is forced to it by self-defence. Both natural reason and the inspired Holy Scriptures proclaim this Divine law."

The intrinsic reason why duelling is in itself sinful and reprehensible is that it is an arbitrary attack on God's right of ownership as regards human life. Only the owner and master of a thing has the right at pleasure to destroy it or expose it to the danger of destruction. But man is not the owner and master of his life; it belongs, instead, entirely to his Creator. Now man can only call that his property and treat it as such which is intended in the first instance for his benefit, so that he has the right to exclude others from the use of the same. Man, however, is not created primarily for himself but for the glory and service of God. Here below he is to serve his Creator and Lord as long as the Lord wills and thus attain his own salvation. For this end God has given man life, maintains it for him, and has bestowed on him the instinct of self-preservation. But if man is not the master of his life, he has not the right to expose it at pleasure to destruction or even deliberately to seek such danger. In order rightfully to expose the life to danger there must be a justifiable reason, and even then the risking of life is only permissible, not the end to be sought in itself. What is said of one's own life applies also to the life of one's fellow-man. Every man has the right in case of necessity forcibly to defend himself against an unlawful attack on his life, even if it cost the life of the assailant; this is a requirement of public safety; but apart from such defence no man has the right as a private individual to injure the life of his fellow-man or at pleasure to expose his own to similar danger. Hence it is easy to perceive that a duellist unjustifiably exposes both his own life and that of his fellow-man consequently is guilty of a wrongful assumption of the right of God, the Lord of life and death. To make this clear it is only necessary to examine the pretexts used to palliate duelling, or, what is the same, to look into the aims to sought to be attained by this custom. One of the principal reasons given in justification of duelling is the obtaining of satisfaction. A man is insulted or injured in reputation, and in order to obtain satisfaction challenges the defamer. But besides the offence against civil law in seeking to establish one's rights with weapons, thus evading the authority of the State, a duel is totally unsuited to the attainment of satisfaction and in addition is wrongful. Satisfaction consists in the offender withdrawing his insult and treating the offended person with respect and honour. This end cannot, however, be attained by duelling. When the one who has given the provocation accepts the challenge he does not thereby withdraw the insult; he intends, rather, to maintain it by weapons and greater wrongdoing to the first, inasmuch as he may severely wound or even kill the challenger. Moreover, who would allow to the man whom he wishes to compel to make good a wrong the same chance of victory as to himself, i.e. who should give the offender the opportunity to add to the wrong he has already done an even more heinous injury? Yet this is what the challenger does in granting his adversary the same weapons and the same chance for success as he claims for himself.

Another reason offered in justification of duelling is self-defence. The duellist desires to avoid the loss of the respect of his peers and thus to retain his office and his income, or, as is said, to defend his honour and his social position. It is unfortunately only too true that to-day the conscientious opponent of duelling, especially in the army, must often suffer great losses. Nevertheless duelling cannot be justified as self-defence. Honour and respect of others cannot be preserved by the use of arms, nor in a duel is there any actual vindication of these. The duel implies that the honour of the challenger has already been injured, and consequently that this injury is an accomplished fact; besides, the duel takes place according to agreement, so that it is not a case of self-defence against sudden attack. But the word self-defence is used in a broader sense. According to the prejudices existing in certain circles, the person who does not answer an insult by a challenge or who declines a challenge is held to be dishonourable and cowardly; thus it may be that a man's entire social position is at stake. Yet, from its very nature, a duel is an unsuitable and illicit method of preserving or rehabilitating honour. Look at a duel first from the point of view of the person injured. He must it is said, send a challenge because he has been insulted. Two cases, however, are here possible. Either his moral character and good name have been attacked, or the specific charge of cowardice has been made against him. If the former be the case, the duel is manifestly unsuited to defend the injured man's honour. A duel can never prove that the person attacked is a person of honour or a simpleton, has not committed adultery, or the like. A man without character or morals can be just as skilful in handling weapons as his honourable opponent. If the quarrel hinges on the charge of cowardice, a duel is apparently a proper means of disproving the same. But in this instance the challenger directly endangers his life in order to prove that he is no coward. Consequently he cannot say that he only suffers his life to be endangered, he deliberately seeks this danger in order to show his courage. And, according to our former statements, this is to dispose of one's life unlawfully. It cannot be said in reply that the injured person merely intends the rehabilitation of his honour. That is certainly the final aim of the duel, but the first and direct aim is to prove one's courage by fighting the duel. Is it permissible, however, to risk one's own life and that of one's fellow-man merely as a means of proving one's courage? If this be correct, it would be equally allowable to enter a lion's cage, sword in hand, if public opinion demanded such proof of personal bravery. Hence it follows that the duel is not in reality a proper means to demonstrate one's courage, for true courage, for true is a moral virtue which is not blind and foolhardy but exposes itself to danger only if reason demand it. What has been said of the injured party is applicable also to the party giving the provocation, the one who is challenged. If he has acted unjustly he should as a man of honour offer reparation; that is his duty, and the refusal to perform this duty plainly gives him no right to fight a duel with his opponent. If he is not in the wrong he ought to refuse the challenge. The only ground for which a challenge might be accepted could be fear of the accusation of cowardice; that this reason is, however, not tenable has already been shown. It surely is the basest cowardice to do, through fear of being accused of want of courage, what sober reflection would lead any man of sense to condemn as immoral and wrong.

The conclusion necessarily to be drawn from the above is: whoever is killed in a duel is indirectly guilty of self-murder, because he has for no justifiable reason risked his life, and whoever slays his adversary in a duel is guilty of unjustifiable homicide, because he has taken the risk of causing death without any right to do so; this holds true even though he did not directly intend his opponent's death. The above applies not only to duels undertaken by private individuals of their own free will, but also to duels fought on account of personal grievances by order of State authorities. Those in authority have not the right to dispose at their pleasure of the life of the subject. Should a dispute be laid before them, they should examine the matter judicially and punish the guilty party. If the guilt cannot be proved the accused should be acquitted; in such a case the authorities have no right to command a duel and thus expose the innocent to the same peril as the guilty. This has all the more force as duels often take place on account of wrongs which are not today punished with death by civil law.

V. CATHREIN

Sir Charles Gavan Duffy

Politician and author, b. at Monaghan, Ireland, 12 April, 1816; d. at Nice, France, 9 Feb., 1903. Educated in his native town, he contributed, at an early age, to the "Northern Herald", and in 1836 joined the staff of the Dublin "Morning Register" of which he shortly afterwards became sub-editor. In 1839, being appointed editor of the newly established Ulster Catholic paper, "The Vindicator", he went to Belfast, where he resided till 1842. Going to Dublin in the summer of that year, he met two young barristers, Thomas Davis and John Dillon, and in conjunction with them he founded "The Nation", the first number of which appeared in October. Duffy was editor, Dillon and Davis were among its contributors, and what with the ability of editor and contributors, the freshness and vigour of style, and the manly and militant tone adopted on public questions, the paper soon became a power. Its whole-hearted support of Repeal filled the meetings and the coffers of the Repeal Association, and O'Connell gratefully recognized its assistance. Peel also noted its influence, and when O'Connell was prosecuted in 1844, Duffy was with him in the dock and subsequently his fellow-prisoner in Kilmainham. Later, in the struggles between the Young and the Old Irelanders, Duffy took sides with the former against O'Connell, and was one of those who helped to found the Irish Confederation. He specially resented O'Connell's alliance with the Whigs, as he did the intolerance and presumption of John O'Connell. The failure of the Repeal movement, the horrors of the famine, and the death of O'Connell weakened his faith in constitutional action, and for a time, in 1848, he advocated revolutionary measures. The Government, in consequence, seized his paper and threw Duffy into prison; but, though tried four times in succession, the prosecution failed, owing chiefly to the great ability of his lawyer, Isaac Butt. In the revived "Nation", in 1849, Duffy reverted to constitutional agitation, and with Lucas and others established in 1850 the Tenant League, which at the general election of 1852 returned forty members of parliament pledged to Tenant Right and Independent Opposition, Duffy himself being returned for New Ross, County Wexford. The treachery of the place-hunters, Keogh and Sadlier, soon wrecked the party, and, when Lucas died, Duffy in despair resigned his seat and left for Melbourne, Australia, where he arrived early in 1856. Though determined to avoid politics, he was induced to enter the Victorian Parliament, where his great abilities made him at once a prominent figure. He filled in succession the position of minister of public works and minister of public lands, and for a brief period was prime minister. Ultimately he became speaker, receiving also the honour of knighthood. These honours and dignities he reached without ever denying either his country or faith, or ever failing to defend them when assailed. He consistently championed the labourers and the farmers against the capitalists and the squatters, and when he left Victoria in 1880 the whole colony regarded him as one of the ablest and most useful of her public men. His last years were devoted to writing several valuable historical works: "Young Ireland" (Dublin, 1884); also his "Four Years of Irish History" (London, 1883); "The League of North and South" (London, 1886); and "My Life in Two Hemispheres" (London, 1903).

E. A. D'ALTON.

Jean-Baptiste Duhamel

A French scientist, philosopher, and theologian, b. at Vire, Normandy (now in the department of Calvados), 11 June, 1624; d. at Paris, 6 August, 1706. He began his studies at Caen and completed them at Paris. In 1642, being only eighteen years of age, Duhamel published an explanation of the work of Theodosius called "Spherics", to which he added a treatise on trigonometry. The following year he entered the Congregation of the Oratory, which he left ten years later to take charge of the parish of Neuilly-sur-Marne. Resigning this position in 1663, he became chancellor of the church of Bayeux. When Colbert founded the Académie of Sciences (1666), he appointed Duhamel its first secretary. Duhamel held this office until 1697, when he resigned and, upon his own recommendation, was succeeded by Fontenelle. With Colbert's brother, Marquis de Croissy, he went, in 1668, first to Aix-la-Chapelle for the peace negotiations, and later to England, where he came in touch with the foremost scientists, especially with the physicist Boyle.

Duhamel's works are "Philosophia moralis christiana" (Angers, 1652); "Astronomia physica" (Paris, 1659); "De meteoris et fossilbus" (Paris, 1659); "De consensu veteris et novæ philosphiæ" (Paris, 1663), a treatise on natural philosophy in which the Greek and scholastic theories are compared with those of Descartes; "De corporum affectionibus" (Paris, 1670); "De mente humanâ" (Paris, 1672); "De corpore animato" (Paris, 1673); "Philosophia vetus et nova ad usum scholæ accommodata" (Paris, 1678). This last work, composed by order of Colbert as a textbook for colleges, ran through many editions. He also published: "Theologia speculatrix et practica" (7 vols., Paris, 1690), abridged in five volumes for use as a textbook in seminaries (Paris, 1694); "Regiæ scientiarum Academiæ historia" (Paris, 1698; enlarged edition, 1701); "Institutiones biblicæ" (Paris, 1698), in which are examined the questions of the authority, integrity, and inspiration of the Bible, the value of the Hebrew text and of its translations, the style and method of interpretation, Biblical geography, and chronology; "Biblia sacra Vulgatæ editionis" (Paris, 1705), with introductions, notes, chronological, historical, and geographical tables. In his choice of opinions, Duhamel shows great impartiality and unbiased judgment. His admiration for empirical science does not make him despise the speculations of his predecessors, but he examines and criticizes both sides carefully, tries to reconcile them, and, if this be impossible, gives his own opinion. Brucker, in his history of philosophy, calls him "vir et judicii laude clarissimus et doctrinæ copia celeberrimus". Fontenelle praises his noble character and his disinterestedness; his charity, which "was exercised too frequently not to become known, notwithstanding his care to conceal it"; his humility, which was not only on his lips, but was "a feeling based on science itself".

VIALARD, J.-B. Duhamel (Paris, 1884); MORIN-LAVALLÉE, Bibliographie viroise (Caen, 1879); FONTENELLE, Histoire du renouvellement de l'Académie royale des sciences en MDCXCIX, et les Eloges historiques de tous les Académiciens morts depuis ce renouvellement (Paris, 1706); CHALMERS, Biographical Dictionary (London, 1814), XVII, 84; BRUCKER, Historia critica philosophiæ (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1767), IV, 760; DUPIN, Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques (2nd ed., Paris and Mons, 1703-), XVIII, 297.

C.A. DUBRAY

Daniel Greysolon, Sieur Du Lhut

(DULUTH).

Born at Saint-Germain-en-Laye about 1640; died at Montreal, 26 Feb., 1710. He first served in the French army, becoming a lieutenant in 1657 and a gendarme of the King's Guard in 1664. He also took part in the campaign in Flanders and was present at the battle of Senef in 1674. During that year he went to Canada, whither he had been preceded by several members of his family, amongst them his cousins, the Tontys. At first he settled in Montreal, but in 1678 left for the West accompanied by his brother, La Tourette, and six soldiers. In 1679 he took possession of the Sioux country in the name of the King of France. He also explored Lake Superior and the high inland plateau where the Mississippi, the Red River, and the St. Lawrence rise, erected the fortified post of Kaministiquia (now Fort William) and afterwards built Fort La Tourette on Lake Nepigon. Du Lhut was the first Canadian to explore the West and it was his privilege to save Father Hennepin from captivity when this famous Recollect missionary, having become separated from La Salle's expedition, was wandering about in the wilderness near Saint-Antoine. On account of his intrepidity, Du Lhut had great influence over the savages, who admired and feared him; he kept them loyal to France and obliged them to join the expeditions which La Barre and Denonville organized against the Iroquois in 1684 and 1687. In 1686 he laid the foundation of the post of Detroit and in 1696, having been made captain after twenty years of service, was in command of Fort Frontenac. Here, in 1707, he was succeeded by Tonty, his cousin. He died three years later and was buried in the church of the Recollects at Montreal.

Du Lhut was one of the most dauntless pioneer rangers (coureurs de bois) in Canada during the French regime. For thirty years he succeeded in keeping the country to the west of the Great Lakes under French control. Notwithstanding that he had every chance of becoming wealthy, he died poor and Governor Vaudreuil testified to his having been a very upright man. The city of Duluth, Minnesota, takes its name from him. Du Lhut wrote accounts of his journeys (1676-1678), but unfortunately they have been lost; however, we have a plan that he designed for a chain of posts to be erected for the purpose of keeping the lake-route clear of savages and thus facilitating communication between Canada and the western and southern parts of the continent (1683-95). This plan was published by Margry (Decouvertes et Etablissements, V, 3-72). In the Library of Congress at Washington may also be found extracts from his account of Detroit.

Sulte in La Revue Canadienne (1893), 480-489, 541-550; McLennan in Harper's Magazine (September. 1893); Transactions Royal Soc. Canada (1903), new series, IX, 39.

J. EDMOND ROY

Dulia

(Greek doulia; Lat. servitus), a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary. St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, X, ii, 1) distinguishes two kinds of servitus: "one which is due to men . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria, which is the service pertaining to the worship of God". St. Thomas (II-II:103:3) bases the distinction on the difference between God's supreme dominion and that which one man may exercise over another. Catholic theologians insist that the difference is one of kind and not merely of degree; dulia and latria being as far apart as are the creature and the Creator. Leibniz, though a Protestant, recognizes the " discrimen infinitum atque immensum between the honour which is due to God and that which is shown to the saints, the one being called by theologians, after Augustine's example, latria, the other dulia"; and he further declares that this difference should "not only be inculcated in the minds of hearers and learners, but should also be manifested as far as possible by outward signs" (Syst. theol., p. 184). A further distinction is made between dulia in the absolute sense, the honour paid to persons, and dulia in the relative sense, the honour paid to inanimate objects, such as images and relics. With regard to the saints, dulia includes veneration and invocation; the former being the honour paid directly to them, the latter having primarily in view the petitioner's advantage. More detailed explanation of dulia and the reasons for which it is shown to persons or things will be found in the articles IMAGES, RELICS, SAINTS. See also ADORATION and WORSHIP.

E. A. PACE

Duluth

DIOCESE OF DULUTH (DULUTHENSIS)

Diocese, established 3 Oct., 1889, suffragan of the Archdiocese of St. Paul, U.S.A., comprises the counties of Aitkin, Becker, Beltrami, Carlton, Cass, Clay, Clearwater, Cook, Crow Wing, Hubbard, Itasca, Kittson, Lake, Marshall, Norman, Pine, Polk, Roseau, Red Lake, Mahnomen, Koochiching, and St. Louis, in the State of Minnesota, an area of 39,439 square miles.

The first white men and the first Catholics to visit this region were the French fur-traders who, under Groseilliers, are recorded as having shipped furs from there in 1660. Daniel Greysolon Du Lhut, the French officer, adventurer, and fur-trader after whom the see city is named, was there in 1679. After a varying existence as trading post and frontier settlement, Duluth was incorporated as a town in May, 1857. The first priest in Minnesota was the famous Father Hennepin, who in 1680 was a prisoner among the Sioux. He explored the Mississippi and at St. Paul named the falls in honour of St. Anthony, writing a glowing description of them in 1683. Wandering missionaries made infrequent visits to the Indian tribes and scattered Catholics of the region down to 1839, when the Rev. Joseph Crétin (q. v.), a zealous French priest, began an active and successful missionary career.

The Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore (1849) recommended to Rome the erection of a new see at St. Paul for the Territory of Minnesota and the appointment of Father Crétin as its first bishop, which plan was carried out. Father Crétin had been in the territory for some time, trying to revive the old Indian missions and evangelize the Canadian voyageurs who went there for the fur trade. The numerous Indians roaming in the wilderness had nearly forgotten the doctrines of Christianity preached to their ancestors by the Recollects and Jesuits more than a century before, but they were still anxious to have the "black-robes" come among them once more. In 1875 the Vicariate Apostolic of Northern Minnesota was established, and these two divisions of the whole State continued until 4 May, 1888, when St. Paul was raised to the rank of an archdiocese with the four suffragan sees of Duluth, Winona, Jamestown (now Fargo), and St. Cloud, the last-named being the new title for the Vicariate of Northern Minnesota. Duluth, the see city, was within these old limits of the vicariate. In 1866 the few Catholics there were brought together by a visiting missionary. They numbered only about two dozen families in 1870, and Father John Chebul, an Austrian by birth, attended them as a mission from Superior and built the first frame chapel for their use. Other priests of the formative period were Fathers G. Keller, a German, J. B. M. Génin, a French Oblate, Joseph Buh, Charles Verwyst, Joseph Staub, Christopher Murphy, and G. J. Goebel.

THE REV. JAMES McGOLRICK, a member of the council of Bishop Ireland of St. Paul and rector of the church of the Immaculate Conception, Minneapolis, was nominated as the first bishop of the new see and consecrated at St. Paul, 27 Dec., 1889. He was born 1 May, 1841, at Borrisokane, County Tipperary, Ireland, and ordained for the American mission at All Hallows Seminary, near Dublin, 11 June, 1867. Emigrating to the United States, he began his work at St. Paul as an assistant at the cathedral. He was next appointed to establish a parish in the then rising town of Minneapolis and remained there for twenty-two years as pastor of the church of the Immaculate Conception. He found, on taking charge of his new diocese, a Catholic population of about 19,000, of which 3000 were Indians. There were 20 priests, 15 secular and 5 regular; 34 churches, 10 stations, and 8 Chippewa Indian missions attended by Benedictine, Franciscan, and Jesuit missionaries.

The first railroad from Duluth to St. Paul ran only in 1870, and in 1882 the first iron-range road, on which industry the chief reliance for material prosperity rested. The commercial panics of 1872 and 1893 were great blows to this section, but in ten years the priests had increased to 38 and the missions and stations to 74 with 30 Indian missions and stations. The Sisters of St. Benedict had been introduced and were in charge of 9 parish and 2 Indian schools, with 1400 children. They also managed 2 hospitals and a home for the aged. The Catholic population had also increased to 23,000. Since then conditions have bettered, and the statistics of the diocese for 1908 give these figures: priests 65, 44 secular, 21 regular; churches with resident priests 50; missions with churches 36; stations 45; chapels 15; academies for girls 3, with 395 pupils; parish schools 10, with 1586 pupils; Indian industrial schools 2, with 192 pupils; orphan asylum 1; hospitals 6; Catholic population 54,300, White 50,000, Indian 4300. The religious communities represented in the diocese are the Benedictine and the Oblate Fathers, the Christian Brothers, the Benedictine Sisters, and the Sisters of St. Joseph. The Benedictine Fathers have charge of the Indian missions, and the Benedictine Sisters attend to the needs of the schools established for the benefit of the Indian children, their industrial schools on the Red Lake and White Earth reservations being especially successful in spite of scant means and other disadvantages. The constant good done by these institutions, for the girls of the tribes especially, has been manifested by every test applied to their operation. The Christian Brothers have a high school attached to the cathedral in Duluth.

REUSS, "Biog. Cycl. of the Hierarchy of U.S." (Milwaukee, 1898); "Catholic News" (New York, Dec., 1889), files; "Directory of Cathedral Parish" (Duluth, 1905); "Catholic Directory U.S." (Milwaukee, 1889-1909); THEBAUD, "Forty Years in the U.S." (New York, 1904); RAVOUX, "Memoirs" (St. Paul, 1892); Documents in archives of Archdiocese of St. Paul and St. Paul Catholic Historical Society.

THOMAS F. MEEHAN

Jean-Baptiste Dumas

Distinguished French chemist and senator, b. at Alais, department of Gard, 14 July, 1800; d. at Cannes, 10 April, 1884. Like many other distinguished chemists, Dumas began his career as a pharmacist, and at Geneva, where he went when a very young man, he obtained a position in the Le Royer pharmacy. Here in connexion with Prévost he published a memoir on the physiology of the nervous system which attracted attention and is still well known. This led to an invitation to go to Paris, where he became tutor of Thénard's course of lectures in chemistry at the Ecole Polytechnique and was appointed professor at the Athénée. While engaged in these positions his published researches concerning the vapour density of the elements, those on the formulæ of alcohols and ethers, his memoirs on the law of substitution in organic compounds, and his work on chemical types gave him an illustrious position in chemical investigation. The first researches on the replacing of hydrogen by chlorine in organic bodies is due to him; this was supplemented by researches as to the atomic weight of carbon, his labours doing much to establish the relations of the hydro-carbon compounds in organic chemistry. With Boussingault he studied the composition of water and of the atmosphere. With Stas he investigated the composition of carbon dioxide, and later his memoirs on hydrogen and the amide compounds brought him at once into the first rank among the chemists of the nineteenth century.

In 1829 he founded the Ecole Centrale des Arts et Manufactures with Péclet, Lavallié, and Olivier. Brilliant lecture courses in the Sorbonne won him further renown. He replaced Thénard as professor at the Ecole Polytechnique, was professor at the Sorbonne and dean of the faculty of sciences. Originally a very poor speaker, by practice and study he acquired elocutionary powers that brought him great celebrity. Dumas also became professor at the Ecole de Médecine, a position he resigned in favour of Wurtz, one of his most distinguished pupils. His scholars included such illustrious men as H. Sainte-Claire Deville, Wurtz, Debray, Pasteur, and others. Turning his attention to politics, Dumas was elected a deputy from the department of Nord in 1849; among the proposed laws in which he was interested were various ones treating the recoining of money, stamped paper, forgery of public acts, taxes on salt, sugar, etc. In 1851 he was appointed minister of agriculture and commerce by Louis Napoléon, and after the coup d'etat was made senator. From 1832 he was a member of the Institute, being elected to the Academy of Sciences, and in 1868 he was made a perpetual secretary; in 1878 he became a member of the French Academy. In 1858-59 he carried on an animated controversy as to the nature of the elements with Despretz; in the course of the discussion Dumas' energetic methods in attacking his opponent's views excited some criticism. His abandonment of chemical research for politics was considered a misfortune by the scientific world, as he ceased his brilliant investigations when in the very prime of his powers.

Dumas was a consistent Catholic, and remained true to his faith all his life. When it was necessary, he never hesitated to defend Christianity against the attacks of materialism. Examples of his views in this regard may be found in his various addresses, as: his address on Bérard; his commemorative address on Farady, and the speech in which he extended the greetings of the Academy to the historian Taine. The Count d'Haussonville, at the funeral of Dumas, gave eloquent testimony to the latter's religious belief. Dumas was a prolific writer. Among his works may be mentioned: "Traité de chimie appliquée aux arts" (8 vols., 1828-45); "Précis de chimie physiologique et médicale"; "Leçons sur la philosophie chimique" (1837); "Essai de statique chimique des êtres organsés" (1841), the last work written in collaboration with Boussingault. Besides the publications just mentioned there were numerous papers in scientific journals and in the transactions of the Academy of Sciences. A list of his papers was published in the "Catalogue of Scientific Papers of Royal Society, London".

MAINDRON, L'OEuvre de Jean-Baptiste Dumas (1886); Dictionnaire Larousse, s. v.

T. O'CONOR SLOANE

Francisco Dumetz

Date of birth unknown; died 14 Jan., 1811. He was a native of Mallorca (Majorca), Spain, where he entered the Franciscan Order. In May, 1770, he went to Mexico with forty-eight other Franciscans to join the famous Franciscan missionary college of San Fernando in the City of Mexico. On volunteering for the Indian missions, he was sent to California in October, 1770. Sailing from San Bias, Jalisco, with ten friars in January, 1771, he reached Monterey in May and was assigned to Mission San Diego. In May, 1772, he was transferred to Mission San Carlos, and in May, 1782, was appointed for Mission San Buenaventura, where he continued his unostentatious labours for the Indians until August, 1797, when he was directed to found Mission San Fernando. Father Dumetz remained there from its founding on 8 September to the end of 1805, except during 1803 and 1804 when apparently he resided at San Gabriel. From January, 1806, to the time of his death, Father Dumetz was stationed at San Gabriel. His remains were buried in the mission church on 15 January. Dumetz was the last of the pioneer friars who did so much for California, where he toiled without interruption for forty years.

Palou, Noticias (San Francisco, 1874), 1; IDEM, Vida del Fray Junipero Serra (Mexico, 1787), Records of Missions, San Carlos San Buenaventura, San Fernando, San Gabriel; ENGEL HARDT, The Franciscans in California (Harbor Springs, Mich., 1897).

ZEPHYRIN ENGELHARDT

Hubert-André Dumont

Belgian geologist, b. at Liège, 15 Feb., 1809; d. in the same city, 28 Feb., 1857. When only twenty years old he received the gold medal of the Academy of Brussels for his "Description géologique de la province de Liège". This memoir marked an important advance in stratigraphical geology. In 1835 he won a doctorate in mathematical and physical science and in the same year was appointed professor of geology and mineralogy at the University of Liège. He held this position until his death, serving also for a time as rector of the university. His native city has erected a statue in his honour. Dumont was a devout Catholic, and one of his sons entered the Society of Jesus. His principal achievement was his geological map of Belgium, the preparation of which engaged his attention for a number of years. The first edition was issued in 1849. Later and more complete editions followed, the last being "La carte geologique de la Belgique et des contriees voisines representant lea terrains qui se trouvent en dessous du limon hesbayen et du sable campinien au 800,000e".

Dumont's work, together with that of Gosselet on the palaeozoic rocks of Belgium, served as a foundation for a subsequent research in that region. The former in 1848 had divided the Terrain Ardennais into the Devillien, Revinien, and Salmien groups, the Terrain Rhenan into the Gedinnien, Coblentzien, and Ahrien groups, and the Terrain Anthraxifere into the Eifelien, Condrusien, and Houiller groups. This classification, though based on purely local characteristics, was an excellent one both from a lithological and a stratigraphical point of view. He did not, however, deem it necessary to make any extended comparison between the subdivisions which he had distinguished in Belgium and similar groups in other countries. It was his opinion that the same fauna never extended over the whole earth, so that extreme caution was necessary in establishing a parallel between widely separated rocks on the basis of fossils contained in them. Besides the works already mentioned, Dumont was the author of a number of papers characterized by careful observation and great clearness. Among them are: "Notice sur une nouvelle espèce de phosphate ferrique" (Bull. de l'Acad. de Belgique, V); Observations sur la constitution géologique des terrians tertiaires de l'Angleterre comparés à ceux de la Belgique" (Ibid., XIX); "Mémoire sur les terrians traisique et jurassique de la province de Luxemburg" (Mém. de l"Acad., XV). "Etude sur les terrians ardennais et rhénan de l'Ardenne, du Rhin, du Brabant, et du Condroz" (Ibid., XX-XXII).

Fayno, André Dumont, sa vie et ses travaux (Liège, 1858); D'Omalius D'Halloy, Notice sur André Dumont (Brussels, 1858); Zittel, History of Geology and Palaeontology (London, 1901); Kneller, Das Christentum u. die Vertreter der neuren Naturwissenschaft (Freiburg, 1904).

HENRY M. BROCK

Charles Dumoulin

(Or DUMOLIN; latinized MOLINAEUS).

French jurist, b. at Paris in 1500; d. there 27 December, 1566. He was a descendant of a noble family related to Anne Boleyn, the mother of Elizabeth of England. The life of Dumoulin was full of vicissitudes. After taking the degree of Doctor of Law, he first lectured on that subject at Orléans in 1521, and afterwards became an advocate of the Parlement of Paris (the highest court of France). He soon abandoned this position, devoted himself exclusively to the study of law, and gained a great reputation by his works on jurisprudence. He liked to call himself the jurisconsult of France and Germany. It is related that he said: "Ego qui nemini cedo nee a nemine doceri possum" (I yield to no one nor is anyone able to teach me). His hatred for the papacy led him into apostasy. In 1542 he embraced Calvinism, but soon passed over to Lutheranism. His violent attacks on the papacy compelled him to seek refuge in Germany. In 1553 he lectured on law at Tübingen, and afterwards at Strasburg, Dôle, and Besançon; returning to Paris in 1557, he was soon obliged to quit that city and went successively to Orléans and Lyons. From 1564, he resided again in Paris; on his death-bed he abjured his heresy and was reconciled to the Church. The following are his principal works upon civil law: "Commentarii in consuetudines Parisienses"; "Extricatio labyrinthi dividui et individui"; "Tractatus de eo quod interest". His chief work on canon law is a critical edition of the "Decree of Gratian" with the gloss, accompanied by notes (postillae or notae) hostile to the pope. Amongst his polemical works may be mentioned: "Commentarius ad edictum Henrici II, contra parvas datas et abusus curiae Romanae" (1552); "Conseil sur le fait du Concile de Trente, réception ou rejet d'icelui" (1564), which work caused him to be cast into prison; "Consilium super commodis et incommodis novae sectae Jesuitarum" (edited 1604). His "Opera omnia" were published in three volumes at Paris, in 1612; the best edition, however, is that of Paris, 1681, in five volumes.

A. VAN HOVE.

William Dunbar

Scottish poet, sometimes styled the "Chaucer of Scotland", born c. 1460; died c. 1520(?). He graduated B.A. at St. Andrews University in 1479. Educated for the Church, according to his own statement he became a Franciscan novice, and as such traversed the whole of England, preached in various towns, and crossed over for a time to Picardy in France. About 1490 he returned to Scotland and entered the service of James IV, who employed him on various embassies to Paris and elsewhere, and settled a small pension on him. He celebrated James's marriage to Margaret of England by his well-known poem "The Thrissil and the Rois" (The Thistle and the Rose, 1503), symbolizing the amity between the two kingdoms. The poet received gifts in money from the king on this and on other occasions, such as the celebration of his first Mass in 1504, but though he often petitioned both the king and queen for a benefice (limiting his wishes, as he said, to a small country kirk covered with heather) he never obtained one, and seems always to have lived in poverty. The best known of his other poems were the "Goldyn Targe", an allegory illustrating the victory of love over reason; a "Dance" (of the seven deadly sins), a work of much gloomy power; and many other pieces, some humorous and disfigured by the coarseness of the time, others of a religious and ascetic type. A few were printed during his lifetime; and in 1834 an admirable edition of his complete works was published, edited by Dr. David Laing. In 1511 Dunbar is mentioned among Queen Margaret's train on one of her journeys; but nothing is heard of him after 1513, the year of the battle of the Flodden. Laing conjectures that he may have fallen at that fight, but other writers suppose him to have survived until about 1520.

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR.

St. Dunchadh

(DUNICHAD, DUNCAD, DONATUS)

Confessor, Abbot of Iona; date of b. unknown, d. in 717. He was the son of Ceannfaeladh and grandson of Maelcobha of the house of Conall Gulban. He is first heard of as Abbot of Killochuir on the coast of S.E. Ulster (perhaps Killough, County Down). There is considerable dispute as to the year in which he became Abbot of Hy (Iona). The "Annals of Ulster" first mention him in that capacity under the year 706 (really 707); but Conamhail was abbot from 704 to 710. It may be that St. Dunchadh was coadjutor to Conamhail (the phrase is principatum tenuit). Or perhaps there was some schism in the monastery over the paschal question, for though St. Dunchadh is said to have ruled from 710 till 717, in 713 the death of "St. Dorbaine Foda, Abbot of Ia" is recorded by the "Annals of the Four Masters", and the same authority relates the appointment of "Faelchu, son of Dorbene" to the abbacy in 714. It was this Faelchu who was certainly abbot from 717 to 724. Both of these, however, may have been really coadjutors to St. Dunchadh, or priors, or even bishops, for there were certainly bishops in Iona at that period, and the phrase employed is cathedram Iae obtinuit. However this may be, the paschal controversy was settled at Iona by the adoption of the Roman usage, while St. Dunchadh was abbot. This took place at the instance of St. Egbert, a Northumbrian priest, who had been educated in Ireland. He came to Iona in 716, and was at once successful in persuading the community to abandon the Celtic Easter and tonsure.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE.

Abbey of Dundrennan

In Kirkcudbrightshire, Scotland; a Cistercian house founded in 1142 by King David I and Fergus Lord of Galloway for monks brought from Rievaulx in Yorkshire. The name (Dun-nan-droigheann) means "fort of the thorn-bushes", and the monastery commands a fine view of the Solway Firth. Queen Mary fled to Dundrennan after the battle of Langside and spent her last night in Scotland there before embarking for England from the neighbouring Port Mary. In 1587 the abbey and lands passed to the Crown, and in 1621 it was annexed to the royal chapel at Stirling. For many years the buildings were used as a quarry for the erection of houses in the vicinity, but in 1842 steps were taken to repair and preserve what was left of them. The cruciform church had a nave of six bays 130 feet long, and choir 45 feet long, 175 feet in all; and there was a central tower 200 feet high. The style is transition between Norman and First Pointed. Among the tombs which remain is that of Alan Lord of Galloway (c. 1250), much mutilated, in the east aisle of the north transept, as well as those of several of the abbots and priors. The finest remains architecturally are those of the chapter-house, with its beautiful cinequfoil arched doorway between two windows, and its roof supported by octagonal columns, of which only fragments are left. Of the domestic buildings of the abbey nothing but a remnant has been preserved. The abbey estate now belongs to the family of Maitland of Dundrennan.

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR.

Diocese of Dunedin

(DUNEDINENSIS)

Dunedin comprises the provincial district of Otago (including the Otago part, Southland, and Stewart Island, as well as other adjacent islands). The diocese contains the most picturesque lake and fiord scenery in New Zealand. Its area is about 24,000 sq. miles, of which some 4000 sq. miles are gold-fields, and 2340 forest. This part of New Zealand was visited (perhaps discovered) by Captain Cook in 1770. Beyond a few traders, there was, however, no white population in the Otago provincial district till 1840, when some families settled on land at Waikouaiti. In 1848 the district was first colonized systematically and on a considerable scale by the Otago Association, under the auspices of the Free Church of Scotland. It was desired to retain the province as a Free Kirk reserve, and the immigration of Catholics was at first resented. The last barriers of religious exclusiveness were, however, swept away by the rush of population that flowed into the province from all parts of Australasia when, in 1861, rich gold was discovered at Gabriel's Gully and elsewhere. The new conditions thus brought about led to a rapid development of the mineral, pastoral, agricultural, and forest resources of Otago. All New Zealand formed part of the Vicariate Apostolic of Western Oceania, which was erected in 1835. The first vicar, Dr. Pompallier, arrived in the country, with the pioneer (Marist) missionaries, in 1838. All New Zealand remained within his spiritual charge till 1848.

From 1848 till 1869 the territory now comprised in the Diocese of Dunedin was included in the episcopal See of Wellington. In the latter year the Diocese of Dunedin was established. Its first bishop was the Right Rev. Patrick Moran, translated thither from the Cape of Good Hope, 3 December, 1869; died 22 May, 1895. He was succeeded by the Right Rev. Michael Verdon, consecrated 3 May, 1896. In 1840 Dr. Pompallier, with Fathers Comte and Pezant, visited and instructed the native villagers and a few white Catholic whalers at Otakou and Moeraki. Up to 1859, however, there was no Catholic church or school or resident priest in the whole southern province, and only about ninety scattered Catholics, who were periodically visited, on foot, by the saintly Marist, Father Petitjean. Early in the gold-rush of the sixties, another devoted Marist missionary, Father Moreau, was appointed resident priest in Dunedin, with charge of the whole province. He built, at Dunedin, the first Catholic church and presbytery in that part of New Zealand. Soon after the arrival of Bishop Moran, ìn 1871, Father Moreau and a few of his fellow-religious who had been for some time labouring in Otago, were recalled to the Diocese of Wellington.

The Dominican nuns and the secular clergy were introduced by the new bishop in 1871, the Christian Brothers in 1874. The "New Zealand Tablet" was established in 1873, and strenuous work was done in extending the facilities for religion and education, a sum of over £80,000 (about $388,000) having been expended for these causes during the first fifteen years of the episcopate of Bishop Moran. When the secular system of public instruction was established by law in 1876, he became, and remained to the close of his life, an eloquent champion of the rights of the Catholic schools to a share in the moneys devoted by the State to the education of youth. The extension of the external organization of religion has more than kept pace with the increase of Catholic population, and Dunedin is one of the best equipped of the smaller dioceses of Australasia. The first Sisters of Mercy were introduced in 1890, the second and larger division in 1897, the Marist Brothers in 1897, the Sisters of St. Joseph in 1897-8, and the Little Sisters of the Poor in 1904. A provincial ecclesiastical seminary for all New Zealand was opened at Mosgiel (near Dunedin) in 1900, and has been greatly enlarged in later years.

At the beginning of 1908 there were in the diocese 20 parochial districts, 65 churches, 32 secular priests, 8 brothers, 160 nuns, 1 ecclesiastical seminary, 4 boarding schools for girls, 6 superior day schools, 20 primary schools, 1 orphanage, 1 home for aged poor, and at the census of 1906 there were 22,685 Catholics in a total white population of 180,974.

THOMSON, Story of New Zealand (London, 1859); MCNAB, Murihiku and the Southern Islands (Invercargill, 1907); POMPALLIER, Early History of the Catholic Church in Oceania (Auckland, 1888); MORAN, History of the Catholic Church in Australasia (Sydney, s. d) PYKE, History of the Early Gold Discoveries in Otago (Dunedin, 1887).

HENRY W. CLEARY.

Abbey of Dunfermline

In the south-west of Fife, Scotland. Founded by King Malcolm Canmore and his queen, Margaret, about 1070, it was richly endowed by him and his sons, and remodelled as a Benedictine abbey by his successor, David I, who brought an abbot and twelve monks from Canterbury. The monastic buildings, which were of such extent and splendour that three sovereigns and their retinues might (says Matthew Paris) have been lodged there together, were burned down by Edward I of England in 1304, but were afterwards restored. The tombs of Malcolm and Margaret are still to be seen within the ruined walls of the Lady chapel, and were repaired and enclosed by order of Queen Victoria. Dunfermline Abbey was one of the richest Scottish houses, owning almost all Western Fife, as well as property in other counties. It possessed, within its own domains, civil and criminal jurisdiction equal to that of the Crown. The church succeeded Iona as the burial-place of kings, and was thus the Westminster Abbey of Scotland. Besides Malcolm and Margaret, David I and Robert Bruce, with his queen and daughter, were interred there. After the Dissolution, the property passed through the hands of the Pitcairn family, Lord Gray, and Seton Earl of Dunfermline, to the Marquises of Tweeddale. The splendid church was destroyed in 1560 by the Reformers, all but the nave, which they refitted for Presbyterian worship. It is a fine example of Anglo-Norman architecture, with a beautiful western doorway. The remains of the church and palace are now Crown property.

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR.

Dungal

Irish monk, teacher, astronomer, and poet who flourished about 820. He is mentioned in 811 as an Irish priest and scholar at the monastery of St-Denis near Paris. In that year he wrote a letter to Charlemagne explaining the eclipse of the sun which was supposed to have taken place in 810. In one of Alcuin's letters (M. G., Epp., IV, 437) he is alluded to as a bishop. In 823 he is mentioned in a "capitulary" of Lothair, and in 825 in an imperial decree by which he was appointed "master" of the school at Pavia. This is the last mention of Dungal in the public records of the empire. In 827 or 828 he appeared against Claudius, Bishop of Turin, in a work defending the veneration of images. From the fact that he bequeathed his books to the library of St. Columbanus at Bobbio it is inferred that he spent his last days in the Irish monastery on the Trebbia. The date of his death is unknown. His books, many of them at least, were transferred by Cardinal Federigo Borromeo to the Ambrosian Library in Milan, where they now are.

Some historians doubt whether the Dungal of St-Denis and the adversary of Claudius are one person. The prevalent opinion, however, is that they are one and the same. In his letter to Charlemagne Dungal brings to bear on the question of eclipses a knowledge of astronomy far beyond the current ideas of the time. His "Reply" to Claudius is enriched with many citations from the Greek and Latin Fathers and from the liturgical hymns of the Church. The poems ascribed in most manuscripts to Exul Hibernicus are believed by Dümmler, editor of the "Poetæ Ævi Carolini", to have been written by Dungal, who like many of his fellow-exiles from Ireland styles himself peregrinus, exul, pauper et peregrinus. Only three of them bear the name Dungal. They are interesting from many points of view, especially from that of the historian who searches the records of Charlemagne's reign for the all too scanty references to the personal feelings and the attitude of mind of the Irish scholars who flocked to the Continent of Europe in the ninth century. Yet they do not enable us to determine when and where Dungal was born, though from the fact that among his books which he presented to the Library of Bobbio is the "Antiphonary of Bangor", it is inferred that he spent the ears of his student life in Ireland at the famous Bangor school. Mabillon published a ninth-century poem from which it appears that Dungal enjoyed among his contemporaries a reputation for more than ordinary learning.

Neues Arciv der Gesllsch. f. deutsche Geschichskunde, IV, 254; Poetæ ævi Carolini, (Berlin, 1881), I, 393; MURATORI, Antiq. Ital., III, dis. xliii; TIRABOSCHI, Storia della letter. italiana, III, 163; Catholic University Bulletin (Washington, 1907), XIII, 11 sqq.

WILLIAM TURNER

Martin von Dunin

Archbishop of Gnesen and Posen, born 11 Nov., 1774, in the village of Wat near the city of Rawa, Poland; died 26 Dec., 1842. in the city of Posen. He studied theology in the Collegium Germanicum at Rome (1793-97), and was ordained priest in Sept., 1797. After some service in the Diocese of Cracow, he was made a canon of Wloclawek by the Bishop of Cujavia, in 1808 canon of Gnesen, in 1815 chancellor of its cathedral chapter, in 1824 canon of Posen and counsellor to the Government in matters of education. On the death of Archbishop Theophilus von Wolicki (1829) Von Dunin became administrator of the Archdiocese of Gnesen and Posen, was appointed archbishop in 1831, and consecrated 10 July of the same year. He endeavoured at once to reorganize his vast diocese, a work rendered necessary by the vicissitudes of Poland in the eighteenth century, the consequent reunion of the Dioceses of Gnesen and Posen, and the secularization or suppression of the monasteries. He reconstructed on a new plan the ecclesiastical seminaries of Gnesen and Posen, travelled throughout the two dioceses administering the Sacrament of Confirmation and dedicating new churches, and discharged faithfully the other duties of his pastoral ministry. In the exercise of these duties he came into conflict with the Prussian Government on the question of mixed marriages. The conditions laid down by Benedict XIV (1740-58) in the Constitution "Magnæ nobis" (29 June, 1748), by which marriages between Catholics and members of other Christian denominations became lawful, had been well observed in Catholic Poland. But in a treaty concluded in 1768 with various European powers the Prussian Government undertook to enforce another order of things. Mixed marriages were no longer forbidden; male children born of such marriages were to be brought up in the religion of their father, the female offspring in that of the mother. The marriage was to be blessed by the ecclesiastical minister, under whose jurisdiction the bride was; if a Catholic priest should refuse to solemnize the marriage, the minister of the other party was to officiate. Similar provisions were contained in the code of Prussian law extended to Prussian Poland in 1797. By a royal decree of King Frederick William III (1797-1840), 21 Nov., 1803, they were further modified in an anti-Catholic sense: all the children of mixed marriages were to be raised in the religion of the father.

Such legislation was unquestionably hostile to Catholic interests. It often happened, therefore, that Catholic priests blessed mixed marriages without first requiring the usual promise concerning the free exercise of religion for the Catholic party and the education of all offspring in the Catholic Faith. The bishops were silent; both priests and bishops seemed to believe that they must endure what they could not prevent. Penalties were inflicted by the Government on all priests who refused to bless mixed marriages contracted without any of the above conditions. The Catholic conscience was finally aroused by the Brief "Litteris altero abhinc" of Pius VIII (1829-30), 25 March, 1830, forbidding priests to bless a mixed marriage if no promise were given relating to the education of the children in the Catholic Faith. In case of such refusal Pius VIII agreed to tolerate a passive assistance (assistentia passiva) on the part of the priest. Realizing the harm done to the Catholic religion by the lax practice observed so far, Archbishop Von Dunin resolved to break with it. In January, 1837, he requested from the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs in Berlin permission to publish the Brief of Pius VIII, or at least to direct his clergy to obey its provisions. His request was refused. A petition sent directly to Frederick William III, 26 Oct., 1837, was similarly treated. Determined not to betray his high office he sent an instruction to his priests, 30 Jan., 1838, in which he inculcated the principles of the Church relating to mixed marriages; Soon after (27 Feb.) he suspended ipso facto any priest of his diocese who should henceforth bless a mixed marriage without previous assurance as to the Catholic education of the offspring. The king was notified of these acts, 10 March, 1838. While the instructions of the archbishop were well received throughout his diocese, the Government was highly indignant and sought by all means to render them ineffectual. They were declared null and void; the archbishop was asked to recall them, and finally (in July, 1838) a regular trial was commenced against him in the Court of Posen, to which, however, he always objected as conducted by a non-competent authority. In the midst of this struggle he received much consolation from the unanimous support of his clergy, and from an Allocution in his favour by Gregory XVI, 13 Sept., 1838. At the conclusion of his trial in 1839 he was summoned to Berlin where he arrived 5 April. A last ineffectual attempt was made to have him recant; finally the sentence of the court proclaiming his deposition from office, inability ever to hold one, and a confinement of six months in a fortress, was read to him. He appealed directly to the king for clemency, but nothing was changed except that he was detained in Berlin instead of being sent to a fortress.

Meanwhile the archbishop began to think of the needs of his diocese, and being unable to obtain permission to return, he departed secretly from Berlin and arrived in Posen, 4 October. In less than two days, during the night of 5-6 Oct., he was arrested and taken to the fortress of Colberg, where he remained until the death of Frederick William III (7 June, 1840). After his departure the diocese put on public mourning; the bells and the organs remained silent during the celebration of the Holy Mysteries; on all Sundays and feast days public prayers were said for the speedy return of the archbishop; and both the clergy and the nobility of Posen made several fruitless attempts to obtain his release. With the accession of the peaceful king, Frederick William IV (1840-61), matters changed. On 3 Aug., 1840, Von Dunin was set free, and on the 5th of the same month he arrived in Posen amid the rejoicing of his faithful flock. According to an agreement reached with the Government he issued a pastoral letter, 25 Aug., in which his previous instructions were somewhat modified, without detriment, however, to Catholic principle. He recommended his clergy not to insist absolutely on the fulfilment of the usual conditions required for mixed marriages, but at the same time to abstain from all active participation in such marriages, if the usual promises were not given. No mention was made of any punishment in the case of contravention. Later on (21 Feb., and 26 Sept., 1842) he issued new instructions relating to the manner of dealing in confession with the husband or wife of a mixed marriage. The priests were directed to be indulgent towards those who tried their best to influence their children in favour of the Catholic Faith, and to distinguish them from those who were altogether careless in the discharge of this sacred duty. With this the whole controversy ceased. Archbishop Von Dunin did not long survive these conflicts. His memory is held in respect for his unswerving loyalty to Catholic principles, and for his courage, frankness, and prudent moderation displayed in their defence.

POHL, Martin Von Dunin, Erzbischof von Gnesen und Posen (Marienburg, 1843); BRÜCK, Gesch. der kath. Kirche in Deutschl. im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Münster, 1903), II; POHL in Kirchenlex., s. v.; MIRBT in Realencyklopädie, s. v.

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER.

Diocese of Dunkeld

(DUNKELDENSIS)

Located in Scotland, constituted, as far back as the middle of the ninth century, the primatial see of the Columban Church by King Kenneth Mac Alpine, who rebuilt there the church and monastery founded by King Constantine (afterwards destroyed by the Danes), and translated thither St. Columba's relics. The first occupant of the see is styled in the Annals of Ulster (a.d. 865) Bishop of Fortrenn, the name by which the kingdom of the Southern Picts was then known. He was also Abbot of Dunkeld, with jurisdiction, formerly enjoyed by Iona, over the other Columban monasteries in Scotland. The seat of the primacy was, however, subsequently transferred to Abernethy, and then to St. Andrews, and Dunkeld became subject to lay abbots, from one of whom, Crinan, sprang Malcolm III and his successors on the throne of Scotland. In 1127 King Alexander, who had already founded the Diocese of Moray farther north, erected Dunkeld into a cathedral church and replaced the Columban monks by a chapter of secular canons. The new bishopric included a great part of what afterwards became the Dioceses of Argyll and Dunblane, and retained its jurisdiction over various churches representing old Columban foundations. The Abbots of Iona remained, as heretofore, subject to the ancient primatial See of Dunkeld, until Iona became the seat of the Bishop of the Isles at the end of the fifteenth century. About the same time Dunkeld (together with Dunblane, Galloway, and Argyll) became a suffragan of the newly-constituted Archbishopric of Glasgow; but during the primacy of Archbishop Foreman of St. Andrews (1513-1522) it was restored to the metropolitan province. Thirty-five bishops occupied the See of Dunkeld from its foundation in 1107 until the extinction of the ancient hierarchy in the sixteenth century. Of this line of prelates the most distinguished were James Kennedy (1438-1440), illustrious for his birth, learning, and piety, who was translated, after two years at Dunkeld, to the Bishopric of St. Andrews; the famous poet-prelate Gavin Douglas (1516-1521), who died in exile in England; and John Hamilton (1545-1547), who succeeded the murdered Cardinal Beaton at St. Andrews, and closed his troubled career on the scaffold at Stirling in 1571. The last pre-Reformation Bishop of Dunkeld was Robert Crichton (nephew of a former occupant of the see), who survived until 1586.

For close on three centuries, the Diocese of Dunkeld, like the other Scottish bishoprics, remained vacant, until, on 4 March, 1878, it was restored by Leo XIII by his Bull, "Ex supremo apostolatus apice". The diocese, as then re-constituted, is one of the suffragan sees of the archiepiscopal province of St. Andrews, and includes the counties of Perth, Forfar, Clackmannan, Kinross, and the northern part of Fife. Since the revival of the see, it has been held by three bishops: George Rigg (died 1887); James G. Smith (transferred to St. Andrews in 1900); and the Right Rev. Angus Macfarlane, consecrated 1901. The bishop's pro-cathedral is in Dundee, the residence of the great majority of the Catholics of the diocese, and the cathedral chapter, erected in 1895, consists of a provost and eight canons. The total number of secular priests in the diocese (1908) is 35; regulars (Redemptorists), 12. The missions and chaplaincies number 17, the churches, chapels, and stations 31, and the parochial schools 15. There are two monasteries of men (Redemptorists and Marists), four convents of women (Sisters of Mercy, Little Sisters of the Poor, Ursulines, and Sisters of Charity), and the Catholic institutions comprise a home for aged poor, a house of mercy for servants, and a working girls' home. The Catholic population of the diocese is estimated to be rather more than 30,000. The old cathedral of Dunkeld, beautifully situated on the Tay amid wooded hills, was erected between 1220 and 1500. The building was much damaged in the reign of Robert II, and suffered later at the hands of the Earl of Buchan, styled the "Wolf of Badenoch". It fell partly into ruins in the sixteenth century, since when the choir has been used for Presbyterian worship. The Dukes of Atholl, long the owners of the building, have spent a good deal on its preservation and repair, and an extensive restoration of the choir was carried out in 1908, chiefly at the cost of Sir Donald Currie. There is now no Catholic church or resident priest in the village of Dunkeld.

SKENE, Celtic Scotland (Edinburgh, 1876-80), II, 370; MYLN, Vitœ Episc. Dunkeld. (Edinburgh, 1831); FORDUN Scotichronicon, ed. GOODALL (Edinburgh, 1759), XVI, xxvii; THEINER, Vet. Mon. Hibern. atque Scot. (Rome, 1864), 506; Dunkeld: Historical and Descriptive (Dunkeld, 1879); WALCOTT, The Ancient Church of Scotland (London, 1874), 208-217; Catholic Directory for Scotland (1908).

D. O. HUNTER-BLAIR.

Bl. John Duns Scotus

Surnamed DOCTOR SUBTILIS, died 8 November, 1308; he was the founder and leader of the famous Scotist School, which had its chief representatives among the Franciscans. Of his antecedents and life very little is definitely known, as the contemporary sources are silent about him. It is certain that he died rather young, according to earlier traditions at the age of thirty-four years (cf. Wadding, Vita Scoti, in vol. I of his works); but it would seem that he was somewhat older than this and that he was born in 1270. The birthplace of Scotus has been the subject of much discussion and so far no conclusive argument in favour of any locality has been advanced. The surname Scotus by no means decides the question, for it was given to Scotchmen, Irishmen, and even to natives of northern England. The other name, Duns, to which the Irish attach so much importance, settles nothing; there was a Duns also in Scotland (Berwick). Moreover, it is impossible to determine whether Duns was a family name or the name of a place. Appeal to supposedly ancient local traditions in behalf of Ireland's claim is of no avail, since we cannot ascertain just how old they are; and their age is the pivotal point.

This discussion has been strongly tinged with national sentiment, especially since the beginning of the sixteenth century after prominent Irish Franciscans like Mauritius de Portu (O'Fihely), Hugh MacCaghwell, and Luke Wadding rendered great service by editing Scotus's works. On the other hand, the English have some right to claim Scotus; as a professor for several years at Oxford, he belonged at any rate to the English province; and neither during his lifetime nor for some time after his death was any other view as to his nationality proposed. It should not, however, be forgotten that in those days the Franciscan cloisters in Scotland were affiliated to the English province, i.e. to the custodia of Newcastle. It would not therefore be amiss to regard Scotus as a native of Scotland or as a member of a Scottish cloister. In any case it is high time to eliminate from this discussion the famous entry in the Merton College MS. (no. 39) which would make it appear that Scotus was a member of that college and therefore a native of Northern England. The statutes of the college excluded monks; and as Scotus became a Franciscan when he was quite younger he could not have belonged to the college previous to joining the order. Besides, the entry in the college register is under the date of 1455, and consequently too late to serve as an argument.

The case is somewhat better with the entry in the catalogue of the library of St. Francis at Assisi, under date of 1381, which designates Duns Scotus's commentary on the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard as "magistri fratris Johannis Scoti de Ordine Minorum, qui et Doctor Subtilis nuncupatur, de provincia Hiberniæ" (the work of master John Scotus of the Franciscan Order known as the subtle doctor, from the province of Ireland). This, though it furnishes the strongest evidence in Ireland's favour, cannot be regarded as decisive. Since Scotus laboured during several years in England, he cannot, simply on the strength of this evidence, be assigned to the Irish province. The library entry, moreover, cannot possibly be accepted as contemporary with Scotus. Add to this the geographical distance and it becomes plain that the discussion cannot be settled by an entry made in far-off Italy seventy-three years after Scotus's death, at a time too when geographical knowledge was by no means perfect. Finally, no decisive evidence is offered by the epitaphs of Scotus; they are too late and too poetical. The question, then, of Scotus's native land must still be considered an open one. When he took the habit of St. Francis is unknown; probably about 1290. It is a fact that he lived and taught at Oxford; for on 26 July, 1300, the provincial of the English province of Franciscans asked the Bishop of Lincoln to confer upon twenty-two of his subjects jurisdiction to hear confessions. The bishop gave the permission only to eight; among those who were refused was "Ioannes Douns". It is quite certain, too, that he went to Paris about 1304 and that there he was at first merely a Bachelor of Arts, for the general of the Franciscans, Gonsalvus de Vallebona, wrote (18 November, 1304) to the guardian of the college of the Franciscans at Paris to present John Scotus at the university for the doctor's degree. The general's letter mentions that John Scotus had distinguished himself for some time past by his learning ingenioque subtilissimo. He did not teach very long in Paris; in 1307 or 1308 he was sent to Cologne, probably as a professor at the university. There he died, and was buried in the monastery of the Minorities. At the present time (1908) the process of his beatification is being agitated in Rome on the ground of a cultus immemorabilis.

Duns Scotus's writings are very numerous and they have often been printed; some, in fact, at a very early date. But a complete edition, in 12 folio volumes, was published only in 1639 by Wadding at Lyons; this, however, included the commentaries of the Scotists, Lychetus, Poncius, Cavellus, and Hiquæus. A reprint of Wadding's edition, with the treatise "De perfectione statuum" added to it, appeared 1891-95 at Paris (Vives) in 26 vols. 4to. Whether all the writings contained in these editions are by Duns Scotus himself is doubtful; it is certain, however, that many changes and additions were made by later Scotists. A critical edition is still wanting. Besides these printed works, some others are attributed to Scotus, especially commentaries on several books of Scripture. The printed writings deal with grammatical and scientific, but chiefly with philosophical and theological subjects. Of a purely philosophical nature are his commentaries and quæstiones on various works of Aristotle. These, with some other treatises, are contained in the first seven volumes of the Paris edition. The principal work of Scotus, however, is the so-called "Opus Oxoniense", i.e. the great commentary on the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard, written in Oxford (vols. VIII-XXI). It is primarily a theological work, but it contains many treatises, or at least digressions, on logical, metaphysical, grammatical, and scientific topics, so that nearly his whole system of philosophy can be derived from this work. Volumes XXII-XXIV contain the "Reportata Parisiensia", i.e., a smaller commentary, for the most part theological; on the "Sentences". The "Quæstiones Quodlibetales", chiefly on theological subjects, one of his most important works, and the above-mentioned essay, "De perfectione statuum", fill the last two volumes. As to the time when these works were composed, we know nothing for certain. The commentaries on Aristotle were probably his first work, then followed the."Opus Oxoniense" and some minor essays, last the "Quæstiones Quodlibetales", his dissertation for the doctor's degree. The "Reportata" may be notes written out after his lectures, but this is merely a surmise.

Scotus seems to have changed his doctrine in the course of time, or at least not to have been uniformly precise in expressing his thought; now he follows rather the sententia communis as in the "Quæstiones Quodlibetales"; then again he goes his own way. Many of his essays are unfinished. He did not write a summa philosophica or theologica, as did Alexander of Hales and St. Thomas Aquinas, or even a compendium of his doctrine. He wrote only commentaries or treatises on disputed questions; but even these commentaries are not continuous explanations of Aristotle or Peter Lombard. Usually he cites first the text or presupposes it as already known, then he takes up various points which in that day were live issues and discusses them from all sides, at the same time presenting the opinions of others. He is sharp in his criticism, and with relentless logic he refutes; the opinions, or at least the argument, of his opponents. In his fervour he sometimes forgets to set down his own view, or he simply states the reasons for various tenable opinions, and puts them forward as more or less probable; this he does especially in the "Collationes". Hence it is said that he is no systematizer, that he is better at tearing down than at building up. It is true that none of his writings plainly reveals a system; while several of them, owing no doubt to his early death, betray lack of finish. His real teaching is not always fully stated where one would naturally look for it; often enough one finds instead the discussion of some special point, or a long excursus in which the author follows his critical bent. His own opinion is to be sought elsewhere, in various incidental remarks, or in the presuppositions which serve as a basis for his treatment of other problems; and it can be discovered only after a lengthy search. Besides, in the heat of controversy he often uses expressions which seem to go to extremes and even to contain heresy. His language is frequently obscure; a maze of terms, definitions, distinctions, and objections through which it is by no means easy to thread one's way. For these reasons the study of Scotus's works was difficult; when undertaken at all, it was not carried on with the requisite thoroughness. It was hard to find a unified system in them. Not a few unsatisfactory one-sided or even wrong opinions about him were circulated and passed on unchallenged from mouth to mouth and from book to book, growing more erroneous as they went. Nevertheless, there is in Scotus's teaching a rounded-out system, to be found especially in his principal work, a system worked out in minutest details. For the present purpose, only his leading ideas and his departures from St. Thomas and the sententia communis need be indicated.

SYSTEM OF PHILOSOPHY

The fundamental principles of his philosophical and theological teaching are his distinctio formalis and his idea of being. The distinctio formalis is intermediate between the distinctio rationis tantum, or the distinction made by the intellect alone, and the distinctio realis or that which exists in reality. The former occurs, e.g., between the definition and the thing defined, the latter, within the realm of created reality, between things that can exist separately or at least can be made to exist separately by Divine omnipotence, as, e.g., between the different parts of a body or between substance and accident. A thing is "formally distinct" when it is such in essence and in concept that it can be thought of by itself, when it is not another thing, though with that other it may be so closely united that not even omnipotence can separate it, e.g. the soul and its faculties and these faculties among themselves. The soul forms with its faculties only one thing (res), but conceptually it is not identical with the intellect or the will, nor are intellect and will the same. Thus we have various realities, entities, or formalities of one and the same thing. So far as the thing itself exists, these entities have their own being; for each entity has its own being or its own existence. But existence is not identical with subsistence. The accident e.g., has its own being, its own existence, which is different from the existence of the substance in which it inheres, just because the accident is not identical with the substance. But it has no subsistence of its own, since it is not a thing existing by itself, but inheres in the substance as its subject and support; it is not an independent being. Moreover, only actually existing; things have real being: in other words, being is identical with existence. In the state of mere ideality or possibility, before their realization, things have an essence, an ideal conceivable being, but not an actual one; else they could not be created or annihilated, since they would have had an existence before their creation. And since being is eo ipso also true and good, only those things are really good and true which actually exist. If God, therefore, by an act of His free will gives existence to the essences, He makes them by this very act also true and good. In this sense, it is quite correct to say that according to Scotus things are true and good because God so wills. By this assertion, however, he does not deny that things are good and true in themselves. They have an objective being, and thence also objective truth and goodness, because they are in the likeness of God, Whose being, Goodness, and truth they imitate. At the same time, in their ideal being they are necessary; the ideas of them are not produced by the Divine free will, but by the Divine intellect, which, without the co-operation of God's will, recognizes His own infinite essence as imitable by finite things and thus of necessity conceives the ideas. In this ideal state God necessarily wills the things, since they cannot but be pleasing to Him as images of His own essence. But from this it does not follow that He must will them with an effective will, i.e. that He must realize them. God is entirely free in determining what things shall come into existence.

God alone is absolutely immaterial, since He alone is absolute and perfect actuality, without any potentiality for becoming other than what He is. All creatures, angels and human souls included, are material, because they are changeable and may become the subject of accidents. But from this it does not follow that souls and angels are corporeal; on the contrary they are spiritual, physically simple, though material in the sense just explained. Since all created things, corporeal and spiritual, are composed of potentiality and actuality, the same materia prima is the foundation of all, and therefore all things have a common substratum, a common material basis. This materia, in itself quite indeterminate, may be determined to any sort of thing by a form--a spiritual form determines it to a spirit, a corporeal form to a material body. Scotus, however, does not teach an extreme Realism; he does not attribute to the universals or abstract essences, e.g. genus and species an existence of their own, independent of the individual beings in which they are realized. It is true, he holds that materia prima, as the indeterminate principle, can be separated from the forma, or the determining principle, at least by Divine omnipotence, and that it can then exist by itself. Conceptually, the materia is altogether different from the forma; moreover, the same materia a can be determined by entirely different forms and the same form can be united with different materiæ, as is evident from the processes of generation and corruption. For this reason God at least can separate the one from the other, just as in the Holy Eucharist He keeps the accidents of bread and wine in existence, without a substance in which they inhere. It is no less certain that Scotus teaches a plurality of forms in the same thing. The human body, e.g., taken by itself, without the soul, has its own form; the forma corporeitatis. It is transmitted to the child by its parents and is different from the rational soul, which is infused by God himself. The forma corporeitatis gives the body a sort of human form, though quite imperfect, and remains after the rational soul has departed from the body in death until decomposition takes place. Nevertheless, it is the rational soul which is the essential form of the body or of man; this constitutes with the body one being, one substance, one person, one man. With all its faculties, vegetative sensitive and intellectual, it is the immediate work of God, Who infuses it into the child. There is only one soul in man, but we can distinguish in it several forms; for conceptually the intellectual is not the same as the sensitive, nor is this identical with the vegetative, nor the vegetative with that which gives the body, as such, its form; yet all these belong formally, by their concept and essence, to the one indivisible soul. Scotus also maintains a formal distinction between the universal nature of each thing and its individuality, e.g. in Plato between his human nature and that which makes him just Plato--his Platoneity. For the one is not the other; the individuality is added to the human nature and with it constitutes the human individual. In this sense the property or difference, or the hæccitas, is the principium individuationis. Hence it is clear that there are many points of resemblance between matter and form on the one hand and universal natures and their individualization on the other. But Scotus is far from teaching extreme Realism. According to his view, matter can exist without form, but not the universal essence without individuation; nor can the different forms of the same thing exist by themselves. He does not maintain that the uniform matter underlying all created things is the absolute being which exists by itself, independent of the individuals, and is then determined by added forms, first to genera, then to species, and lastly to individuals. On the contrary, materia prima, which according to him can exist without a form, is already something individual and numerically determined. In reality there is no materia without form, and vice versa. The materia which God created had already a certain form, the imperfect form of chaos. God could create matter by itself and form by itself, but both would then be something individual, numerically, though not specifically, different from other matter and other forms of the same kind. This matter, numerically different from other matter, could then be united with a form, also numerically different from other forms of the same kind; and the result would be a compound individual, numerically different from other individuals of the same kind. From such individualized matter, form, and compound we get by abstraction the idea of a universal matter, a universal form, a universal compound, e.g. of a universal man. But by themselves universal matter and universal form cannot exist. The universal as such is a mere conception of the mind; it cannot exist by itself, it receives its existence in and with the individual; in and with the individual it is multiplied, in and with the individual it loses again its existence. Even God cannot separate in man the universal nature from the individuality, or in the human soul the intellectual from the sensitive part, without destroying the whole. In reality there are only individuals, in which, however, we can by abstraction formally separate both the abstract human nature from the individuality and the several faculties from one another. But the separation and distinction and formation of genera and species are mere processes of thought, the work of the contemplating mind.

The psychology of Scotus is in its essentials the same as that of St. Thomas. The starting-point of all knowledge is the sensory or outer experience, to which must be added the inner experience, which he designates as the ultimate criterion of certitude. He lays stress on induction as the basis of all natural sciences. He denies that sense perception, and a fortiori intellectual knowledge, is merely a passive process; moreover, he asserts that not only the universal but also the individual is perceived directly. The adequate object of intellectual knowledge is not the spiritual in the material, but being in its universality. In the whole realm of the soul the will has the primacy since it can determine itself, while it controls more or less completely the other faculties. The freedom of the will, taken as freedom of choice, is emphasized and vigorously defended. In presence of any good, even in the contemplation of God, the will is not necessitated, but determines itself freely. This doctrine does not imply that the will can decide what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong, nor that its choice is blind and arbitrary. Objects, motives, habits, passions, etc. exert a great influence upon the will, and incline it to choose one thing rather than another. Yet the final decision remains with the will, and in so far the will is the one complete cause of its act, else it would not be free. With regard to memory, sensation, and association we find in Scotus many modern views.

SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY

It has been asserted that according to Scotus the essence of God consists in His will; but the assertion is unfounded. God, he holds, is the ens infinitum. It is true that according to him God's love for Himself and the spiration of the Holy Ghost by Father and Son are not based upon a natural instinct, so to say, but upon God's own free choice. Every will is free, and therefore God's will also. But His will is so perfect and His essence so infinitely good, that His free will cannot but love it. This love, therefore, is at once free and necessary. Also with regard to created things Scotus emphasizes the freedom of God, without, however, falling into the error of merely arbitrary, unmotived indeterminism. It has been asserted, too, that according to Scotus, being can be attributed univocally to God and creatures; but this again is false. Scotus maintains that God is the ens per essentiam, creatures are entia per participationem--they have being only in an analogical sense. But from the being of God and the being of creatures, a universal idea of being can be abstracted and predicated univocally of both the finite and the infinite; otherwise we could not infer from the existence of finite things the existence of God, we should have no proof of God's existence, as every syllogism would contain a quaternio terminorum. Between God's essence and His attributes, between the attributes themselves, and then between God's essence and the Divine Persons, there is a formal distinction along with real identity. For conceptually Divinity is not the same as wisdom, intellect not the same as will; Divinity is not identical with paternity, since Divinity neither begets, as does the Father, nor is begotten, as is the Son. But all these realities are formally in God and their distinction is not annulled by His infinity; on the other hand it remains true that God is only one res. The process constituting the Blessed Trinity takes Place without regard to the external world. Only after its completion the three Divine Persons, as one principle, produce by their act of cognition the ideas of things. But quite apart from this process, God is independent of the world in His knowledge and volition, for the obvious reason that dependence of any sort wood imply imperfection.

The cognition, volition, and activity of the angels is more akin to ours. The angels can of themselves know things; they do not need an infused species though in fact they receive such from God. The devil is not necessarily compelled, as a result of his sin always to will what is evil; with his splendid natural endowments he can do what in itself is good; he can even love God above all things, though in fact he does not do so. Sin is only in so far an infinite offense of God as it leads away from Him; in itself its malice is no greater than is the goodness of the opposite virtue.

In his Christology, Scotus insists strongly on the reality of Christ's Humanity. Though it has no personality and no subsistence of its own, it has its own existence. The unio hypostatica and the communicatio idiomatum are explained in accordance with the doctrine of the Church, with no leaning to either Nestorianism or Adoptionism. It is true that Scotus explains the influence of the hypostatic union upon the human nature of Christ and upon His work differently from St. Thomas. Since this union in no way changes the human nature of Christ, it does not of itself impart to the Humanity the beatific vision or impeccability. These prerogatives were given to Christ with the fullness of grace which He received in consequence of that union. God would have become man even if Adam had not sinned, since He willed that in Christ humanity and the world should be united with Himself by the closest possible bond. Scotus also defends energetically the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. All objections founded on original sin and the universal need of redemption are solved. The merits of Christ are infinite only in a broader sense, but of themselves they are entirely sufficient to give adequate satisfaction to the Divine justice; there is no deficiency to be supplied by God's mercy. But there is needed a merciful acceptation of the work of Christ, since in the sight of God there is no real merit in the strictest sense of the word.

Grace is something entirely supernatural and can be given only by God, and, what is more, only by a creative act; hence the sacraments are not, properly speaking, the physical or instrumental cause of grace, because God alone can create. Sanctifying grace is identical with the infused virtue of charity, and has its seat in the will; it is therefore conceived rather from the ethical standpoint. The sacraments give grace of themselves, or ex opere operato, if man places no obstacle in the way. The real essence of the Sacrament of Penance consists in the absolution; but this is of no avail unless the sinner repent with a sorrow that springs from love of God; his doctrine of attrition is by no means lax. As to his eschatology it must suffice to state that he makes the essence of beatitude consist in activity, i.e. in the love of God, not in the Beatific Vision; this latter is only the necessary condition.

In ethics Scotus declares emphatically that the morality of an act requires an object which is good in its nature, its end, and its circumstances, and according to the dictate of right reason. It is not true that he makes God's free will decide arbitrarily what is good and what is bad; he only asserts that the Commandments. Of the second table of the Decalogue are not in such strict sense laws of nature as are those of the first table; because God cannot grant a dispensation from the laws of the first, whereas He can dispense from those of the second; as in fact He did when He commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. But the precepts of the second table also are far more binding than the other positive laws of God. In the present order of things God cannot permit manslaughter universally, taking the property of others, and the like. There are also indifferent actions in individuo. Absolutely speaking, man should direct all his actions towards God; but God does not require this, because He does not wish to burden man with so heavy a yoke. He obliges man only to observe the Decalogue; the rest is free. Social and legal questions are not treated by Scotus ex professo; his works, however, contain sound observations on these subjects.

RELATION BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY

Scotus does not, as is often asserted, maintain that science and faith can contradict each other, or that a proposition may be true in philosophy and false in theology and vice versa. Incorrect, also, is the statement that he attaches little importance to showing the harmony between scientific knowledge and faith and that he has no regard for speculative theology. Quite the contrary, he proves the dogmas of faith not only from authority but, as far as possible, from reason also. Theology presupposes philosophy as its basis. Facts which have God for their author and yet can be known by our natural powers especially miracles and prophecies, are criteria of the truth of Revelation, religion, and the Church. Scotus strives to gain as thorough an insight as possible into the truths of faith, to disclose them to the human mind, to establish truth upon truth, and from dogma to prove or to reject many a philosophical proposition. There is just as little warrant for the statement that his chief concern is humble subjection to the authority of God and of the Church, or that his tendency a priori is to depreciate scientific knowledge and to resolve speculative theology into doubts. Scotus simply believes that many philosophical and theological proofs of other scholars are not conclusive; in their stead he adduces other arguments. He also thinks that many philosophical and theological propositions can be proved which other Scholastics consider incapable of demonstration. He indeed lays great stress on the authority of Scripture, the Fathers, and the Church but he also attaches much importance to natural knowledge and the intellectual capacity of the mind of angels and of men, both in this world and in the other. He is inclined to widen rather than narrow the range of attainable knowledge. He sets great value upon mathematics and the natural sciences and especially upon metaphysics. He rejects every unnecessary recourse to Divine or angelic intervention or to miracles, and demands that the supernatural and miraculous be limited as far as possible even in matters of faith. Dogmas he holds are to be explained in a somewhat softened and more easily intelligible sense, so far as this may be done without diminution of their substantial meaning, dignity, and depth. In Scripture the literal sense is to be taken, and freedom of opinion is to be granted so far as it is not opposed to Christian Faith or the authority of the Church. Scotus was much given to the study of mathematics, and for this reason he insists on demonstrative proofs in philosophy and theology; but he is no real sceptic. He grants that our senses, our internal and external experience, and authority together with reason, can furnish us with absolute certainty and evidence. The difficulty which many truths present lies not so much in ourselves as in the objects. In itself everything knowable is the object of our knowledge. Reason can of its own powers recognize the existence of God and many of His attributes, the creation of the world out of nothing, the conservation of the world by God, the spirituality, individuality, substantiality, and unity of the soul, as well as its free will. In many of his writings he asserts that mere reason can come to know the immortality and the creation of the soul; in others he asserts the direct opposite; but he never denies the so-called moral evidence for these truths.

Theology with him is not a scientific study in the strictest sense of the word, as are mathematics and metaphysics, because it is not based upon the evidence of its objects, but upon revelation and authority. It is a practical science because it pursues a practical end: the possession of God. But it gives the mind perfect certainty and unchangeable truths; it does not consist in mere practical, moral, and religious activity Thus Scotus is removed from Kant and the modern Gefühlstheologen, not by a single line of thought but by the whole range of his philosophical speculation. Scotus is no precursor of Luther; he emphasizes ecclesiastical tradition and authority, the freedom of the will, the power of our reason, and the co-operation with grace. Nor is he a precursor of Kant. The doctrine regarding primacy of the will and the practical character of theology has quite a different meaning in his mind from what it has in Kant's. He values metaphysics highly and calls it the queen of sciences. Only as a very subtle critic may he be called the Kant of the thirteenth century. Nor is he a precursor of the Modernists. His writings indeed contain many entirely modern ideas, e.g. the stress he lays on freedom in scientific and also in religious matters, upon the separateness of the objective world and of thought, the self-activity of the thinking subject, the dignity and value of personality; yet in all this he remains within proper limits, and in opposition to the Modernists he asserts very forcibly the necessity of an absolute authority in the Church, the necessity of faith, the freedom of the will; and he rejects absolutely any and every monistic identification of the world and God. That he has so often been misunderstood is due simply to the fact that his teaching has been viewed from the standpoint of modern thought.

Scotus is a genuine Scholastic philosopher who works out ideas taken from Aristotle, St. Augustine, and the preceding Scholastics. He is universally recognized as a deep thinker, an original mind, and a sharp critic; a thoroughly scientific man, who without personal bias proceeds objectively, stating his own doctrines with modesty and with a certain reserve. It has been asserted that he did more harm than good to the Church, and that by his destructive criticism, his subtleties, and his barbarous terminology he prepared the ruin of Scholasticism, indeed that its downfall begins with him. These accusations originated to a great extent in the insufficient understanding or the false interpretation of his doctrines. No doubt his diction lacks elegance; it is often obscure and unintelligible; but the same must be said of many earlier Scholastics. Then too, subtle discussions and distinctions which to this age are meaningless, abound in his works; yet his researches were occasioned for the most part, by the remarks of other Scholastic philosophers, especially by Henry of Ghent, whom he attacks perhaps even more than he does St. Thomas. But the real spirit of scholasticism is perhaps in no other Scholastic so pronounced as in Scotus. In depth of thoughts which after all is the important thing, Scotus is not surpassed by any of his contemporaries. He was a child of his time; a thorough Aristotelean, even more so than St. Thomas; but he criticizes sharply even the Stagirite and his commentators. He tries always to explain them favourably, but does not hesitate to differ from them. Duns Sootus's teaching is orthodox. Catholics and Protestants have charged him with sundry errors and heresies, but the Church has not condemned a single proposition of his; on the contrary, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which he so strongly advocated, has been declared a dogma.

PARTHENIUS MINGES

St. Dunstan

Archbishop and confessor, and one of the greatest saints of the Anglo-Saxon Church; b. near Glastonbury on the estate of his father, Heorstan, a West Saxon noble. His mother, Cynethryth, a woman of saintly life, was miraculously forewarned of the sanctity of the child within her. She was in the church of St. Mary on Candleday, when all the lights were suddenly extinguished. Then the candle held by Cynethryth was as suddenly relighted, and all present lit their candles at this miraculous flame, thus foreshadowing that the boy "would be the minister of eternal light" to the Church of England. In what year St. Dunstan was born has been much disputed. Osbern, a writer of the late eleventh century, fixes it at "the first year of the reign of King Aethelstan", i.e. 924-5. This date, however, cannot be reconciled with other known dates of St. Dunstan's life and involves many obvious absurdities. It was rejected, therefore, by Mobillon and Lingard; but on the strength of "two manuscripts of the Chronicle" and "an entry in an ancient Anglo-Saxon paschal table", Dr. Stubbs argued in its favour, and his conclusions have been very generally accepted. Careful examination, however, of this new evidence reveals all three passages as interpolations of about the period when Osbern was writing, and there seem to be very good reasons for accepting the opinion of Mabillon that the saint was born long before 925. Probably his birth dates from about the earliest years of the tenth century.

In early youth Dunstan was brought by his father and committed to the care of the Irish scholars, who then frequented the desolate sanctuary of Glastonbury. We are told of his childish fervour, of his vision of the great abbey restored to splendour, of his nearly fatal illness and miraculous recovery, of the enthusiasm with which he absorbed every kind of human knowledge and of his manual skill. Indeed, througout his life he was noted for his devotion to learning and for his mastery of many kinds of artistic craftsmanship. With his parent's consent he was tonsured, received minor orders and served in the ancient church of St. Mary. So well known did he become for devotion of learning that he is said to have have been summoned by his uncle Athelm, Archbishop of Canterbury, to enter his service. By one of St. Dunstan's earliest biographers we are informed that the young scholar was introduced by his uncle to King Aethelstan, but there must be some mistake here, for Athelm and probably died about 923, and Aethelstan did not come to the throne till the following year. Perhaps there is confusion between Athelm and his successor Wulfhelm. At any rate the young man soon became so great a favourite with the king as to excite the envy of his kingfolk court. They accused him of studying heathen literature and magic, and so wrought on the king that St. Dunstan was ordered to leave the court. As he quitted the palace his enemies attacked him, beat him severely, bound him, and threw him into a filthy pit (probably a cesspool), treading him down in the mire. He managed to crawl out and make his way to the house of a friend whence he journeyed to Winchester and entered the service of Bishop Aelfheah the Bald, who was his relative. The bishop endeavoured to persuade him to become a monk, but St. Dunstan was at first doubtful whether he had a vocation to a celibate life. But an attack of swelling tumours all over his body, so severe that he thought it was leprosy, which was perhaps some form of blood-poisoning caused by the treatment to which he had been subjected, changed his mind. He made his profession at the hands of St. Aelfheah, and returned to live the life of a hermit at Glastonbury. Against the old church of St. Mary he built a little cell only five feet long and two and a half feet deep, where he studied and worked at his handicrafts and played on has harp. Here the devil is said (in a late eleventh legend) to have tempted him and to have been seized by the face with the saint's tongs.

While Dunstan was living thus at Glastonbury he became the trusted adviser of the Lady Aethelflaed, King Aethelstan's niece, and at her death found himself in control of all her great wealth, which he used in later life to foster and encourage the monastic revival. About the same time his father Heorstan died, and St. Dunstan inherited his possessions also. He was now become a person of much influence, and on the death of King Aethelstan in 940, the new King, Eadmund, summoned him to his court at Cheddar and numbered him among his councillors. Again the royal favour roused against him the jealousy of the courtiers, and they contrived so to enrage the king against him that he bade him depart from the court. There were then at Cheddar certain envoys from the "Eastern Kingdom", by which term may be meant either East Anglia or, as some have argued, the Kingdom of Saxony. To these St. Dunstan applied, imploring them to take him with them when they returned. They agreed to do so, but in the event their assistance was not needed. For, a few days later, the king rode out to hunt the stag in Mendip Forest. He became separated from his attendants and followed a stag at great speed in the direction of the Cheddar cliffs. The stag rushed blindly over the precipice and was followed by the hounds. Eadmund endeavoured vainly to stop his horse; then, seeing death to be imminent, he remembered his harsh treatment of St. Dunstan and promised to make amends if his life was spared. At that moment his horse was stopped on the very edge of the cliff. Giving thanks to God, he returned forthwith to his palace, called for St. Dunstan and bade him follow, then rode straight to Glastonbury. Entering the church, the king first knelt in prayer before the altar, then, taking St. Dunstan by the hand, he gave him the kiss of peace, led him to the abbot's throne and, seating him thereon, promised him all assistance in restoring Divine worship and regular observance.

St. Dunstan at once set vigorously to work at these tasks. He had to re-create monastic life and to rebuild the abbey. That it was Benedictine monasticism which he established at Glastonbury seems certain. It is true that he had not yet had personal experience of the stricter Benedictinism which had been revived on the Continent at great centres like Cluny and Fleury. Probably, also, much of the Benedictine tradition introduced by St. Augustine had been lost in the pagan devastations of the ninth century. But that the Rule of St. Benedict was the basis of his restoration is not only definitely stated by his first biographer, who knew the saint well, but is also in accordance with the nature of his first measures as abbot, with the significance of his first buildings, and with the Benedictine prepossessions and enthusiasm of his most prominent disciples. And the presence of secular clerks as well as of monks at Glastonbury seems to be no solid argument against the monastic character of the revival. St. Dunstan's first care was to reerect the church of St. Peter, rebuild the cloister, and re-establish the monastic enclosure. The secular affairs of the house were committed to his brother; Wulfric, "so that neither himself nor any of the professed monks might break enclosure". A school for the local youth was founded and soon became the most famous of its time in England. But St. Dunstan was not long left in peace. Wihin two years after the appointment King Eadmund was assassinated (946). His successor, Eadred, appointed the Abbot of Glastonbury guardian of the royal treasure of the realm to his hands. The policy of the government was supported by the queen-mother, Eadgifu, by the primate, Oda, and by the East Anglian party, at whose head was the great ealddorman, Aethelstan, the "Half-king". It was a policy of unification, of conciliation of the Danish half of the nation, of firm establishment of the royal authority. In ecclesiatical matters it favoured the spread of regular observance, the rebuilding of churches, the moral reform of the secular clergy and laity, the extirpation of heathendom. Against all this ardour of reform was the West-Saxon party, which included most of the saint's own relations and the Saxon nobles, and which was not entirely disinterested in its preference for established customs. For nine years St. Dunstan's influence was dominant, during which period he twice refused an bishopric (that of Winchester in 951 and Credition in 953), affirming that he would not leave the king's side so long as he lived and needed him.

In 955 Eadred died, and the situation was at once changed. Eadwig, the elder son of Eadmund, who then came to the throne, was a dissolute and headstrong youth, wholly devoted to the reactionary party and entirely under the influence of two unprincipled women. These were Aethelgifu, a lady of high rank, who was perhaps the king's foster-mother, and her daughter Aelfgifu, whom she desired to marry to Eadwig. On the day of his coronation, in 956, the king abruptly quit the royal feast, in order to enjoy the company of these two women. The indignation of the assembled nobles was voiced by Archbishop Oda, who suggested that he should be brought back. None, however, were found bold enough to make the attempt save St. Dunstan and his kinsman Cynesige, Bishop of Lichfield. Entering the royal chamber they found Eadwig with the two harlots, the royal crown thrown carelessly on the ground. They delivered their message, and as the king took no notice, St. Dunstan compelled him to rise and replace his crown on his head, then, sharply rebuking the two women, he led him back to the banquet-hall. Aethelgifu determined to be revenged, and left no stone unturned to procure the overthrow of St. Dunstan. Conspiring with the leaders of the West-Saxon party she was soon able to turn his scholars against the abbot and before long induced Eadwig to confiscate all Dunstan's property in her favour. At first Dunstan took refuge with his friends, but they too felt the weight of the king's anger. Then seeing his life was threatened he fled the realm and crossed over to Flanders, where he found himself ignorant alike of the language and of the customs of the inhabitants. But the ruler of Flanders, Count Arnulf I, received him with honour and lodged him in the Abbey of Mont Blandin, near Ghent. This was one of the centres of the Benedictine revival in that country, and St. Dunstan was able for the first time to observe the strict observance that had had its renascence at Cluny at the beginning of the century. But his exile was not of long duration. Before the end of 957 the Mercians and Northumbrians unable no longer to endure the excesses of Eadwig, revolted and drove him out, choosing his brother Eadzar as king of all the country north of the Thames. The south remained faithful to Eadwig. At once Eadgar's advisers recalled St. Dunstan, caused Archbishop Oda to consecrate him a bishop, and on the death of Cynewold of Worcester at the end of 957 appointed the saint to that see. In the following year the See of London also became vacant and was conferred on St. Dunstan, who held it in conjunction with Worcester. In october, 959, Eadwig died and his brother was readily accepted as ruler of the West-Saxon kingdom. One of the last acts of Eadwig had been to appoint a successor to Archbishop Oda, who died on 2 June, 958. First he appointed Aelfsige of Winchester, but he perished of cold in the Alps as he journeyed to Rome for the pallium. In his place Eadwig nominated Brithelm, Bishop of Wells. As soon as Eadgar became king he reversed this act on the ground that Brithelm had not been able to govern even his former diocese propely. The archbishopric was conferred on St. Dunstan, who went to Rome 960 and received the pallium from Pope John XII. We are told that, on his journey thither, the saint's charities were so lavish as to leave nothing for himself and his attendants. The steward remonstrated, but St. Dunstan merely suggested trust in Jesus Christ. That same evening he was offered the hospitality of a neighbouring abbot.

On his return from Rome Dunstan at once regained his position as virtual ruler of the kingdom. By his advice Aelfstan was appointed to the Bishopric of London, and St. Oswald to that of Worcester. In 963 St. Aethelwold, the Abbot of Abingdon, was appointed to the See of Winchester. With their aid and with the ready support of King Eadgar, St. Dunstan pushed forward his reforms in Church and State. Throughout the realm there was good order maintained and respect for law. Trained bands policed the north, a navy guarded the shores from Danish pirates. There was peace in the kingdom such as had not been known within memory of living man. Monasteries were built, in some of the great cathedrals ranks took the place of the secular canons; in the rest the canons were obliged to live according to rule. The parish priests were compelled to live chastely and to fit themselves for their office; they were urged to teach parishioners not only the truths of the Catholic Faith, but also such handicrafts as would improve their position. So for sixteen years the land prospered. In 973 the seal was put on St. Dunstan's statesmanship by the solemn coronation of King Eadgar at Bath by the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York. It is said that for seven years the king had been forbidden to wear his crown, in penance for violating a virgin living in the care of the nunnery of Wilton. That some severe penance had been laid on him for this act by St. Dunstan is undoubted, but it took place in 961 and Eadgar wore no crown till the great day at Bath in 973. Two years after his crowning Eadgar died, and was succeeded by his eldest son Eadward. His accession was disputed by his step-mother, Aelfthryth, who wished her own son Aethelred to reign. But, by the influence of St. Dunstan, Eadward was chosen and crowned at Winchester. But the death of Eadgar had given courage to the reactionary party. At once there was an determined attack upon the monks, the protagonists of reform. Throughout Mercia they were persecuted and deprived of their possessions by Aelfhere, the ealdorman. Their cause, however, was supported by Aethelwine, the ealdorman of East Anglia, and the realm was in serious danger of civil war. Three meetings of the Witan were held to settle these disputes, at Kyrtlington, at Calne, and at Amesbury. At the second place the floor of the hall (solarium) where the Witan was sitting gave way, and all except St. Dunstan, who clung to a beam, fell into the room below, not a few being killed. In March, 978, King Eadward was assassinated at Corfe Castle, possibly at the instigation of his step-mother, and Aetheled the Redeless became king. His coronation on Low Sunday, 978, was the last action of the state in which St. Dunstsn took part. When the young king took the usual oath to govern well, the primate addressed him in solemn warning, rebuking the bloody act whereby he became king and prophesying the misfortunes that were shortly to fall on the realm. But Dunstan's influence at court was ended. He retired to Canterbury, where he spent the remainder of his life. Thrice only did he emerge from this retreat: once in 980 when he joined Aelfhere of Mercia in the solemn translation of the relics of King Eadward from their mean grave at Wareham to a splendid tomb at Shaftesbury Abbey; again in 984 when, in obedience to a vision of St. Andrew, he persuaded Aethelred to appoint St. Aelfheah to Winchester in succession to St. Aethelwold; once more in 986, when he induced the king, by a donation of 100 pounds of silver, to desist from his persecution of the See of Rochester.

St. Dunstan's life at Canterbury is characteristic; long hours, both day and night, were spent in private prayer, besides his regular attendance at Mass and the Office. Often he would visit the shrines of St. Augustine and St. Ethelbert, and we are told of a vision of angels who sang to him heavenly canticles. He worked ever for the spiritual and temporal improvement of his people, building and restoring churches, establishing schools, judging suits, defending the widow and the orphan, promoting peace, enforcing respect for purity. He practised, also, his handicrafts, making bells and organs and correcting the books in the cathedral library. He encouraged and protected scholars of all lands who came to England, and was unwearied as a teacher of the boys in the cathedral school. There is a sentence in the earliest biography, written by his friend, that shows us the old man sitting among the lads, whom he treated so gently, and telling them stories of his early days and of his forebears. And long after his death we are told of children who prayed to him for protection against harsher teachers, and whose prayers were answered. On the vigil of Ascension Day, 988 he was warned by a vision of angels that he had but three days to live. On the feast itself he pontificated at Mass and preached three times to the people: once at the Gospel, a second time at the benediction (then given after the Pater Noster), and a third time after the Agnus Dei. In this last address he announced his impending death and bade them farewell. That afternoon he chose the spot for his tomb, then took to his bed. His strength failed rapidly, and on Saturday morning (19 May), after the hymn at Matins, he caused the clergy to assemble. Mass was celebrated in his presence, then he received Extreme Unction and the Holy Viaticum, and expired as he uttered the words of thanksgiving: "He hath made a remembrance of his wonderful works, being a merciful and gracious Lord: He hath given food to them that fear Him." They buried him in his cathedral; and when that was burnt down in 1074, his relics were translated with great honour by Lanfranc to a tomb on the south side of the high altar in the new church. The monks of Glastonbury used to claim that during the sack of Canterbury by the Danes in 1012, the saint's body had been carried for safety to their abbey; but this claim was disproved by Archbishop Warham, by whom the tomb at Canterbury was opened in 1508 and the holy relics found. At the Synod of Winchester in 1029, St. Dunstan's feast was ordered to be kept solemnly throughout England on 19 May. Until his fame was overshadowed by that of St. Thomas the Martyr, he was the favourite saint of the English people. His shrine was destroyed at the Reformation. Throughout the Middle Ages he was the patron of the goldsmiths' guild. He is most often represented holding a pair of smith's tongs; sometimes, in reference to his visions, he is shown with a dove hovering near him, or with a troop of angels before him.

LESLIE A. ST. L. TOKE

Felix-Antoine-Philibert Dupanloup

Bishop of Orléans, France, b. at Saint-Félix; Savoie, 2 June, 1802; d. at Lacombe, Isère, 11 October, 1878. His mother, Anne Dechosal, to whom he ever remained tenderly devoted, gave him his early education. The better to screen his future from the disgrace of his illegitimate birth, she took him when only seven years old to Paris where, by dint of work and privations, she succeeded in keeping him for some time at the Collège Sainte-Barbe. After various attempts in other directions, Félix chose the ecclesiastical career, studying grammar at the Petite Communauté, humanities at the preparatory seminary of Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet, philosophy at Issy, and theology at Saint-Sulpice. Ordained priest 18 Dec., 1825, he went as curate to the Madeleine where he founded the famous Catéchismes de l'Assomption and the Académie de St-Hyacinthe, being entrusted meanwhile with the religious education of the Duc de Bordeaux and of the Princes d'Orléans. The novelty and success of his catechizing methods drew upon him the ill will of his pastor. Transferred to Saint-Roch (1834), he soon won a reputation as pulpit orator and director. As superior of the preparatory seminary of Saint-Nicolas (1837-45), he so completely transformed the institution that admission into it was eagerly sought by members of the best families of France. "During those few years", says Renan, himself a pupil of Saint-Nicolas (Souvenirs d'enfance et de jeunesse), "the old house of the rue St-Victor became the school in France which sheltered the greatest number of historical or well-known names." At Saint-Nicolas Dupanloup was truly the ideal educator later described in his famous book: "La haute éducation intellectuelle". Absorbed as he was in his professional work, he did not completely give up the direction of souls. Through one of his penitents, Pauline de Périgord, he brought about the conversion of Talleyrand (1838). A course in sacred eloquence which he had brilliantly inaugurated at the Sorbonne was discontinued after the eleventh lecture, owing to the excitement occasioned by the lecturer's severe criticism of Voltaire and Villemain's unwillingness to enforce order. In 1844, in connexion with the Villemain educational bill, which was scarcely more satisfactory to the Catholics than its numerous predecessors, Dupanloup inaugurated with Montalembert and Ravignan that long struggle for liberty of education which resulted in the loi Falloux. It was at his suggestion that Ravignan wrote "De l'existence et de l'institut des Jésuites", in order to put down the still active bugbear of the hommes noirs called up by Bérenger. He also actively supported Montalembert in the formation of the Committee for the Defence of Religious Liberty, and when later Thiers spoke in favour of another unacceptable educational bill, Dupanloup wrote in reply "Des associations religieuses", a pamphlet which became later the book "De la pacification religieuse". A difference of views with Archbishop Affre, in connexion with the above-mentioned polemics and the direction of Saint-Nicolas, ended in Dupanloup's transfer from the seminary to a canonicate at Notre-Dame, 1845.

The four years of his canonicate were by no means years of leisure. In spite of his increasing activity in confessional and pulpit, he found time for public interests. The elections of 1846 sent to the French Parliament some 150 deputies friendly to liberty of education, and for these Dupanloup wrote "L'état de la question", a moderate but clear assertion of Catholic claims. As the Salvandy project of 1847 fell short of these claims, he again published a series of pamphlet "Du nouveau projet de loi", "Des petits-séminaires", among others; and the better to control public opinion, he undertook the work of a Catholic daily paper finally purchasing "L'ami de la religion". In 1848 when Falloux, yielding to Dupanloup's persuasion, accepted a portfolio under President Louis Napoleon, he appointed a commission to draft an educational bill, and made Dupanloup a member. Dupanloup's courtesy and undeniable competence won over to the Catholic view such men as Thiers and Cousin, thus insuring the enactment of 1850. "He made me minister against my will", said Falloux speaking of Dupanloup; "I have made him bishop against his will." Appointed to the See of Orléans, he took possession of it 11 Dec., 1849, and during the twenty-eight years of his episcopate showed incredible activity. His administration, minutely described by Cochard, touched on every vital interest of the diocese: the holding of synods, parish visitations, organization of catéchismes and petits-séminaires along the lines adopted in Paris, development of charitable works, encouragement of ecclesiastical studies among priests, completion of the cathedral of Ste-Croix, introduction of the Roman Liturgy, etc. Still his energy was not exhausted. Wherever the interests of religion were at stake, he gave them vigorous support. In the question of the classics he stood for the broader view and entered upon a lively discussion with Louis Veuillot. Profiting by his membership in the French Academy, to which he had been elected 8 May, 1854, Dupanloup prevented the award of the prix Bodin to Taine's "History of English Literature " and opposed the admission of Littré into that body. The reorganization of "Le Correspondant", with Falloux, Foisset, Cochin, and de Broglie at its head, was also largely his work. The Pucelle d'Orléans (Jeanne d'Arc) found in him an ardent champion; twice he pronounced her panegyric at Orléans, and it was he who introduced in Rome the cause of her beatification and raised the first funds towards a new monument in her honour.

Dupanloup was always held in high esteem by the Irish people. In 1862, on the occasion of one of the periodical Irish famines, he preached a charity sermon in the Church of St-Roch at Paris, which netted the sum of thirty thousand francs. The grateful Irish returned this with interest during the Franco-Prussian war when they remitted to the eloquent Bishop of Orléans the sum of two hundred thousand francs in response to his appeal for the needs of France. On the occasion of the centenary (1875) of Daniel O'Connell, whom he had always admired and often praised publicly, Dupanloup was formally invited by the centenary authorities to take part in the celebration. Though too ill at the time to accept the honourable invitation, he wrote in reply two letters, memorable for their eloquence, to the Lord-Mayor of Dublin arid to Cardinal McCabe, and which were printed in "Le Monde", 9 and 10 Aug., 1875 (Lagrange, Vie de Dupanloup, Paris, 1894, II, 347-48; III, 317). His "Letter on Slavery", written on the occasion of the Civil War in the United States, is another evidence of Dupanloup's broad sympathy, and helps to account tor his popularity in English-speaking countries.

Dupanloup's main efforts, however, were directed towards the defence of the Holy See, menaced in its independence by the ambition of the House of Savoy and the ill-disguised connivance of Napoleon III. Salomon says (Mgr Dupanloup, p. 58): "For eight years, he did not lay down his arms. From Villafranca to Mentana, he never took off his breast-plate." During this phase of his life, besides endeavouring to enlist pontifical zouaves and to increase the Peter's-pence, he wrote the "Protestation", against the impending spoliation of the pope; the "Lettre à un catholique sur la brochure 'Le pape et le congrès'"; "La souveraineté pontificale", in which he cited a declaration made by Cousin in favour of the temporal power of the pope; two other pamphlets, one against the Convention of 15 Sept., 1864, and the other in defence of the Encyclical of 8 Dec. and of the Syllabus; several letters to Ratazzi, Minghetti, etc. The Vatican Council and the Franco-Prussian War exhibit Dupanloup in two very different lights. At the council he was the leader of that minority which for political reasons stood, if not against the papal infallibility itself, at least against the opportuneness of its definition. The papal Bull of indiction, in which no mention was made of infallibility, he welcomed with joy and transmitted to his flock in a dignified pastoral letter; but when the Catholic sentiment, voiced by such organs as the "Civiltà Cattolica" and the "Univers", began to petition for the definition, he appended to his pastoral letter certain observations which, by making known in advance the position he intended to take, involved him in a petty controversy with Louis Veuillot. Once in Rome he never swerved from his position but used all the resources of his fiery nature to win others over to his views. It was he who, on the eve of the final vote, advised the minority to vote neither placet nor non-placet, but to abstain and withdraw. That he appealed to the secular arm and threatened the council with diplomatic intervention has been both asserted and denied. This much is vouched for by Ollivier, then minister of Napoleon III: "No bishop of the minority, Dupanloup or other, ever demanded the evacuation of the pontifical territory" (Le Correspondant, 10 Dec., 1892). In justice to him it should be added that, once the dogma was defined, he was neither slow to acquiesce in what he called "the victory of truth and of God" nor half-hearted in declaring his adherence. During the Franco-Prussian War Dupanloup showed himself a worthy successor of Saint-Aignan and like him won the title of defensor civitatis. His prestige enabled him to have the severe conditions imposed by the victors on the city of Orléans either withdrawn or mitigated. In gratitude his people sent him to the National Assembly. As a member he took an effective part in securing the passage of the law which restored the military chaplains (1874) and of that which authorized the Catholic institutes (1875). He was made Senator in 1875, and one of his last public acts was to deter the French Government from officially taking notice of the centenary of Voltaire (1878). A malady which had long undermined his health resulted in his death while at the château Lacombe. His remains were laid to rest in the cathedral of Orléans and his heart conveyed to Saint-Félix, his native place. As a clause of his last will forbade any funeral oration, Bishop Bougaud pronounced only a few words of eulogy, the oration being delivered in 1888 by Bishop Besson at the unveiling of Dupanloup's monument.

Dupanloup was without question one of the ablest French bishops of his day. He repeatedly refused higher positions. In many things a conservative and even a legitimist, he was one of the first who thought of appealing, in behalf of the Catholic cause, to common law and public liberties before a generation no longer able or willing to recognize the Divine right of the Church. The criticisms passed on him by Catholics of a different, school were more than offset by numerous papal Briefs of encouragement and episcopal letters of approval from all parts of the world. A man of action, he was also a prolific writer. A complete list of his writings is given by Lagrange, his biographer. Some of his polemical pamphlets have already been noticed. In his educational writings Dupanloup enunciates some of the most important principles which are now generally accepted. Among these are his conception of education as a process of developing mental activity instead of injecting knowledge into the mind, and his; insistence on the duty of the teacher to respect the freedom of the pupils and to cultivate; in them a spirit of honour. He advocates physical education by means of games, and warns against the danger of forcing precocious children. Education, he holds, is intellectual, moral, religious, and physical; but it is essentially one, and to neglect any of its purposes would be fatal.

His more important works are:-- catechetical: "L'oeuvre par excellence" (1869); educational: "L'éducation en général", "La haute éducation intellectuelle" (1850), "La femme studieuse" (1869), and "Lettres sur l'éducation des filles" (1878); historical: "Vie de Mgr Borderies" (Paris, 1904); oratorical: panegyrics of Jeanne d'Arc (1855 and 1869), St. Martin (1862), and St. Vincent de Paul (1863); funeral orations of Père de Ravignan (1858), the volunteers (1860), Mgr Menjaud (1861), and Lamoricière (1865); pastoral: "Lettres pastorales et mandements" (in the archives of the episcopal palace of Orléans).

DUPANLOUP, Journal intime, ed. in part, BRANCHEREAU (Paris, 1902); LAGRANGE, Vie de Mgr Dupanloup (Paris, 1883; 7th ed., 1894); SALOMON, Mgr. Dupanloup in Les Grands Hommes de l'Eglise au XIXe siècle (Paris, 1907). VI; Co-CHARD, Dupanloup in L'épiscopat français (1802-1905) (Paris,1907), s.v. Orléans; THUREAU-DANGIN, Hist. de la monarchie de Juillet (Paris, 1892), V; LECANUET, L'Eglise de France sous la troisième république ('Paris, 1907); GRIMAUD, Liberté d'enseignement en France (Paris, 1907); OLLIVIER, l'Eglise l'Etat au Concile du Vatican (Paris, 1879). See also E. VEUILLOT, Louis Veuillot (Paris, 1901); LECANUET, Vie de Montalembert (1895-1901); PONTLEVOY, Vie du R. P. Xavier de Ravignan (Paris, 1860); LEDOS, Vie du R.P. Lacordaire (Paris, 1902).

J.F. SOLLIER

Jacques-Davy Duperron

A theologian and diplomat, born 25 Nov., 1556, at St-Lô (Normandy), France; died 5 Sept., 1618, at Batignolles, a suburb of Paris. His parents were Calvinists and on account of persecution sought refuge in Switzerland soon after his birth. Having received a thorough literary, scientific, and philosophical education, he applied himself to the study of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, especially St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, and in 1577 or 1578 was converted to the Catholic Faith. He enjoyed the favour and confidence of King Henry III, to whom he had been presented in 1576, and later that of Henry IV. The latter's conversion was to a great extent due to Duperron's instructions and influence, and his absolution from heresy was obtained from the pope by Duperron and Cardinal d'Ossat (1595). While in Rome for that purpose, Duperron was consecrated Bishop of Evreux, a see to which King Henry IV had already appointed him in 1591, though he was not yet in Holy orders. Immediately after his conversion Duperron began to work with untiring zeal for the conversion of Protestants. By his science, eloquence, and power of argument he won many victories in controversies and conferences with ministers of the reformed sects. In 1600 the famous Fontainebleau conference took place with the leader of French Calvinism, Duplessis-Mornay, who had been accused by Duperron of mutilating, falsifying, and misinterpreting texts from the Fathers in his work on the Eucharist. Of the judges three were Catholics, and three Calvinists. On 4 May nine passages were examined concerning which the commission decided against Duplessis. The latter's real or feigned sickness and his departure prevented further meetings.

Duperron was created a cardinal in 1604. The same year he went to Rome, and was invited to assist at the meetings of the Congregatio de Auxiliis which Clement VIII had summoned to end the discussions on grace and freedom. Meanwhile he took an important part in the election of Leo XI and Paul V. The decision of Paul V not to condemn the Molinistic system was due largely to Duperron's advice. Duperron became Archbishop of Sens in 1606. In 1611 he stopped the decision of the Parliament condemning one of Bellarmine's works, and defended the latter's thesis of the pope's infallibility and superiority over councils. At a synod held at Paris (1612) he condemned the work "De ecclesiastic et politicâ potestate" by Edmond Richer, syndic of the Sorbonne. In 1614-15, at the meeting of the States General at Paris, he urged, against the Third Estate, the acceptance of the decrees of the Council of Trent on discipline and reform. Duperron's knowledge and eloquence were so great that Pope Paul V said of him: "Let us pray that God may inspire Duperron, for he will persuade us of whatever he pleases."

His works were collected in three volumes (Paris, 1620 and 1622). The first volume contains his "Traité du sacrement de l'Eucharistie " written against Duplessis-Mornay. Its three books deal with;

• (1) a comparison of the Eucharist and the other sacraments of the New Law with those of the Old Law;
• (2) the tradition of the Fathers, to which is added a special study of St. Augustine's doctrine;
• (3) the practice of the Church concerning the adoration of the Eucharist.

The second volume is the "Réplique à la Réponse du Roy de la Grande-Bretagne". James I of England claimed that he belonged to the Catholic Church, as he believed all truths considered necessary by the first Christians. In his answer Duperron treats of the characteristics of the Catholic Church, of some articles which the king did not look upon as essential, the preservation and integrity of the doctrine and discipline of the Church, the Eucharist as a sacrament and a sacrifice, the invocation of the Saints, the use of Latin, translation of Holy Scripture, etc. The third volume contains various works among which are a treatise on vocation, the Acts of the Fontainebleau conference, a refutation of the work of Tilenus on Apostolic traditions, some moral and spiritual treatises, and poems both Christian and profane. Duperron's secretary, César de Ligny, wrote "Ambassades et négociations du cardinal Duperron" (Paris, 1618). Under the title of "Perroniana", remarks on theological, political, and literary subjects were published by Christophe du Puy from the notes of his brother, who had been with Duperron for a long time.

FÉRET, Le cardinal Duperron (Paris, 1877); DE BURIGNY, Vie du cardinal Duperron (Paris, 1768); DUPIN, Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques (Paris, 1710), XVII, 25; RÄSS, Die Convertiten seit der Reformation (Freiburg, 1866), II, 226, 441, III, 384; Gallia christiana (2d ed., Paris, 1870), XI, 612, XII, 96; SEIDL in Kirchenlexicon, IV, 26.

C. A. DUBRAY.

Louis Ellies Dupin

(also DU PIN)

A theologian, born 17 June, 1657, of a noble family in Normandy; died 6 June, 1719. His mother, a Vitart, was the niece of Marie des Moulins, grandmother of the poet Jean Racine. At the age of twenty Dupin accompanied Racine who made a visit to Nicole for the purpose of becoming reconciled to the gentlemen of Port Royal. But, while not hostile to the Jansenists, Dupin's intellectual attraction was in another direction; he was the disciple of Launoy, a learned critic and a Gallican. Dupin took his theological course at the Sorbonne, and received there the degree of bachelor in 1680, and of doctor in 1684.

From the beginning of his studies he had accumulated notes on the works and teachings of the Fathers. In 1686 there appeared the first volume of the "Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques", covering the first three centuries. In it Dupin had treated simultaneously biography, literary criticism, and the history of dogma; in this he was a pioneer leaving far behind him all previous efforts, Catholic or Protestant, which were still under the influence of the Scholastic method. He was also the first to publish such a collection in a modern language. Unfortunately he was young and worked rapidly. In this way errors crept into his writings and his productions were violently attacked. Mathieu Petit-Didier, a Benedictine, published an anonymous volume of "Remarques sur la bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques de M. Du Pin" (Paris, 1691), and this was followed by two other volumes to which the author's name was appended (Paris, 1692 and 1696). Dupin answered him in his fifth volume and Petit-Didier replied in the fore part of his second volume of "Remarques". Petit-Didier's observations were often inspired by contemporaneous prejudice. Thus Dupin had placed in the fourth century, to which indeed he rightly belongs, St. Macarius the Egyptian. Petit-Didier discovered Semipelagianism in this author's works, in reality ideas professed by many before St. Augustine, but from which the adversary of Dupin concluded that Macarius should come after Pelagius and St. Augustine (II, 198).

A more formidable enemy appeared in Bossuet, who, during a public thesis at the College of Navarre in 1692, condemned the audacity of the critic. Dupin answered him and Bossuet appealed to the civil authority, denouncing Dupin to Chancellor Boucherat and to Archbishop de Harlay. Bossuet simply enumerated the points that he disapproved in the "Bibliothèque" concerning original sin, purgatory, the canonicity of the Sacred Scriptures, the eternity of hell's torments, the veneration of saints and of their relics, the adoration of the Cross, grace, the pope and the bishops, Lent, divorce, the celibacy of the clergy, tradition, the Eucharist, the theology of the Trinity, and the Council of Nicæa. He demanded a censure and a retractation.

Like Petit-Didier Bossuet would not admit that any of the Greek or Latin Fathers differed from St. Augustine on the subject of grace, non that this matter could be called subtle, delicate, and abstract. Between Dupin and Bossuet there was a still wider difference." The liberty M. Dupin takes of so harshly condemning the greatest men of the Church should, in general, not be tolerated" (Bossuet, Œuvres, XXX, 513). On the other hand Bossuet strongly contended that heretics could not be too severely dealt with: "It is dangerous to call attention to passages that manifest the firmness of these people without also indicating wherein this firmness has been overrated: otherwise they are credited with a moral steadfastness which elicits sympathy and leads to their being excused" (op. cit., XXX, 633).

Dupin submitted but was nevertheless condemned by the Archbishop of Paris (14 April, 1696). He continued his "Bibliothèque", which was put on the Index long after his death (10 May, 1757), though other works of his were condemned at an earlier date. He had also to suffer the criticism of Richard Simon (Paris, 1730, 4 vols.). Simon and Dupin had similar views and methods so that when Bossuet was writing the "Défense de la Tradition et des Saints Pères" (which did not appear, however, until 1743), he included both in his invectives against the "haughty critics" who inclined to rabbinism and the errors of Socinus. Although Dupin spoke favourably of Arnauld and signed the "Cas de conscience", he was not a Jansenist. On these matters he rather shared the opinion of Launoy who "had found a way to be at once both demi-Pelagian and Jansenist" (Bossuet, Œuvres, XXX, 509). Dupin was pre-eminently a Gallican. It was probably on this account that Louis XIV had him exiled to Châtellerault, on the occasion of the "Cas de conscience". Dupin retracted and returned, but his chair in the College of France was irretrievably lost. Later Dubois, who aspired to the cardinalate and sought therefore the favour of Rome, made similar accusations against Dupin. Dupin was on friendly terms with Wake, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, who hoped for a union of the two Churches. The correspondence was looked on with suspicion, and in 1718 the regent had Dupin's papers seized. This act led to calumnies against the writer, who really had had no other aim than the reconciliation of the separated Anglicans. A similar purpose animated the "mémoires" he presented to Peter the Great during the latter's residence in France. Dupin died shortly after.

Besides the "Nouvelle bibliothèque ecclésiastique" (58 vols. 8vo with tables), the "Remarques" by Petit-Didier, and the "Critique" by R. Simon reprinted in Holland (19 vols. 4to), Dupin edited the works of Gerson (Paris, 1703), Optatus of Mileve (Paris, 1700), the Psalms with annotations (1691), and published "Notes sur le Pentateuque" (1701), an abridgment of "L'histoire de l'Eglise" (1712), "L'histoire profane" (1714-1716), "L'histoire d'Apollonius de Tyane" (1705, under the name of M. de Clairac), a "Traité de la puissance ecclésiastique et temporelle", a commentary on the Four Articles of the clergy of France (1707), the "Bibliothèque universelle des historiens" (1716), numerous works and articles on theology, reprints of former works, etc. Dupin was no pedant. Etienne Jordan, a contemporary who saw him, said: the morning he would grow pale over books and in the afternoon over cards in the pleasant company of ladies. His library and adjoining apartment were marvellously well kept."

NICÉRON, Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire des hommes illustres (Paris, 1727-1745), II, 31; BOSSUET. Œuvres (Versailles, 1817), XXX, 475; REUSCH, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher (Bonn, 1885), II, 586; MARGIVAL, R. Simon in Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses (Paris, 1899), IV, 435; SAINTE-BEUVE, Port-Royal, VI, 129, 174, 365; MOSHEIM AND MACLAINE, Histoire ecclésiastique ancienne et moderne (1776), VI, 135; also ET. JORDAN, Recueil de littérature, de philosophie et d'histoire (Amsterdam, 1730), 66.

PAUL LEJAY.

Pierre-Charles-François Dupin

Known as BARON CHARLES DUPIN.

A French mathematician and economist, b. at Varzy, Nièvre, 6 October, 1784; d. at Paris, 18 January, 1873. At the age of twenty-three he entered the Ecole polytechnique, and after three years of successful studies under the famous Monge, he received the degree of naval engineer. He then served in that capacity in the navy and showed so much ability that he was later appointed inspector-general of the navy. In 1813 he published a pamphlet, "Développement de géométrie pour faire suite à la géométrie pratique de Monge" (Paris, 1813, containing many new and brilliant theories, the most important of which were one relating to the indicatrix of curved surfaces and another on orthogonal surfaces. He was elected to the Academy of Sciences in 1818. The next year Dupin received a professorship at the Conservatoire des arts et metiers; during this period he wrote various pamphlets on scientific topics, such as: "Applications de géométrie et de mécanique à la marine" (Paris, 1822); "Diverses lecons sur l'industrie, le commerce, la marine" (Paris, 1825), and also numerous memoirs for the Academy of Sciences, which were highly spoken of. Notwithstanding his brilliant prospects as a mathematician, he soon preferred to devote himself to political economy. His "Voyages en Grande Bretagne de 1816 a 1819 (6 vols., Paris, 1820-1824), which were the result of a personal inquiry into the commerce and industry of England placed him in the foremost rank of statisticians. In his "Carte de la France eclairee" (Paris, 1824), he was the first to use different colours to show the development of education in various parts of France. Charles X gave him the title of baron in 1824. Dupin gradually turned to politics and for forty years was a member of legislative assemblies. Under the Restoration, in spite of the honour bestowed upon him by the Bourbons, he sided with the Liberals and took his seat at the Left of the Chamber; under the Monarchy of July, he sat with the Centre, and finally with the Right, under the Republic of 1848. He rallied to the Second Empire and was appointed senator by Napoleon III. In his political career he showed himself a man of ability, of great industry and activity, and never failed to assert his Catholic convictions. Although a less brilliant man than his brother the Elder Dupin, he may have a more lasting reputation on account of his discoveries in geometry.

ANONYMOUS, Notice historique sur le baron Charles Dupin (Paris, 1857); Les Mondes (Paris, 1873), XXX, 135; Revue des questions historiques (1881), IX, 517-500.

LOUIS N. DELAMARRE

Peter Stephen Duponceau

A jurist and linguist, b. at St-Martin de Ré, France 3 June, 1760; d. at Philadelphia, U.S.A., 1 April, 1844. Educated in a Benedictine college, he exhibited a marked taste for languages, and in 1777 accompanied Baron Steuben to America, serving as his secretary in the Revolutionary army, with rank of captain, until compelled by ill-health to resign in 1781. He settled in Philadelphia, studied law, and was admitted to the Bar. Throughout a long life he was identified with public affairs and was also author or translator of a number of legal or historical treatises, but his fame rests chiefly upon his studies of the native American languages at a period when ethnology was as yet hardly recognized as a science. Most of his linguistic papers appeared in volumes of the American Philosophical Society (Philadelphia), of which he was a member from 1791 and president from 1827 until his death. His memoir on the grammatical system of the Indian languages (Mémoire sur le systeme grammatical des langues de quelques nations Indiennes de l'Amérique du Nord) won the Volney prize of the French Institute in 1835.

JAMES MOONEY

Duprat

(1) Antoine Duprat

Chancellor of France and Cardinal, b. at Issoire in Auvergne, 17 January, 1463; d. at the Chateau de Nantouillet near Meaux, 9 July, 1535. Educated for the law he won a high position in his profession and in 1507 became first president of the Parliament of Paris (the highest court of France). In 1515 Francis I made him chancellor and prime minister. In 1517, after his wife's death, he took Sacred orders and gradually rose in the hierarchy: first as bishop of several dioceses held by him in plurality; then as Archbishop of Sens, 1525; cardinal, 1527, and legate a latere, 1530. Duprat's influence extended much beyond the departments of justice and finance placed under his direct control. Hanotaux, in the introduction to his "Recueil des instructions", calls Duprat "one of the most notable men of ancient France, second only to Richelieu in the decisive influence he exercised on the destinies of his country". This influence was constantly exerted to strengthen royal absolution; it was felt in the stern measures he took against the grands Seigneurs and in his elaborate fiscal system. Duprat's influence was also manifested together with his perfect orthodoxy, in those measures which affected the relations of France with the Church, namely, the signing of the Concordat of 1516, and the checking of nascent Protestantism. The Concordat, which Duprat himself negotiated with Leo X at Bologna, did away with the schismatical principles of the "Pragmatic Sanction"; on the other hand, by causing the appointment of the French hierarchy to rest on royal nomination instead of the old canonical elections, it vested in the civil power an easily abused authority over Church affairs. Duprat's uncompromising attitude towards Protestantism was dictated both by his political sense and his orthodoxy. The wiles of Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin did not deceive him; even so the well-known Protestant sympathies of Marguerite d'Angouleme, the Duchesse d'Etampes, and the Minister du Bellay failed to move him. The Sorbonne and the Parliament were instructed to exclude the writings of the innovators; in 1534 the posting of subversive pamphlets at the door of the royal apartments cost the perpetrators their lives. Duprat left no writings, but took a leading part in the compilation of the "Coutumes d'Auvergne"; he also did much to encourage the renaissance of letters.

(2)Guillaume Duprat

Son of the foregoing, b. at Issoire, 1507; d. at Beauregard, 1560. Appointed Bishop of Clermont in 1529, he led a zealous and saintly life and is favourably known by the leading part he took in the last sessions of the Council of Trent as well as by his patronage of the Jesuits. Not only did he receive them in his diocese, where they were put in charge of the colleges of Billom and Mauriac, but, in face of much opposition, he helped them financially and in other ways to found in Paris the College de Clermont, so called after Duprat's episcopal city.

DUPRAT, Vie d'Antoine Dupret (Paris, 1857); HANOTAUX, Etudes historiques sur les XVI et XVII siecles (Paris, 1886); IDEM, Recueil des instructions donnees aux ambassadeurs (Paris, 1888). I; BAUDRILLART, Quartre cents ans de concordat (Paris, 1905); FOURNIER, Guillaume Duprat in Etudes religieuses, 1904.

J.F. SOLLIER

Baron Guillaume Dupuytren

French anatomist and surgeon, born 6 October, 1777, at Pierre-Buffière, a small town in the Limousin, France; died in Paris, 8 February, 1835. His parents were so poor that he received his education at the Collège de la Marche through charity. By competitive examination he gained the position of prosecutor in anatomy at the newly established Ecole de Médecine, Paris, when he was but eighteen. In 1803 he was appointed assistant surgeon to the Hôtel-Dieu. In 1811 he became professor of operative surgery, and in 1815 professor of clinical surgery at the Ecole de Médecine and head surgeon to the Hôtel-Dieu. He was indefatigable in his devotion to his profession and had one of the largest surgical practices of all time. He amassed fortune established at $1,5000,000. He succeeded in accomplishing all this in spite of a consumptive tendency against which he had to battle all his life and which finally carried him off. In his will he endowed the chair of anatomy at the Ecole de Médecine and established a home for physicians in distress. A curious contraction of the fascia of the palm of the hand, which cripples the fingers, is called after him, bears his name. The most important of his writings is his treatise on artificial anus. He published also a treatise on gunshot wounds and clinical lectures on surgery. Dupuytren was not an original investigator in surgical subjects, but he was an excellent observer and a great worker, who knew how to adopt and adapt others' ideas very practically.

JAMES J. WALSH

François Duquesnoy

(Called also FRANÇOIS FLAMAND, and in Italy IL FLAMINGO).

Born at Brussels, Belgium, 1594; died at Leghorn, Italy, 12 July, 1646. Duquesnoy was son of an excellent Dutch scultor from whom he received his first lessons. At an early age he carved the figure of justice on the portal of the chancellerie at Brussels, and two angels for the entrance of the Jesuit church of that city. In 1619, at the age of twenty-five, he was sent by the Archduke Albert to study in Rome, and there he resided many years, executing various works of importance. To him we owe the handsome baldachinum over the high altar in St. Peter's, the colossal statue of St. Andrew with his cross, also in st. Peter's, and the Santa Susanna in the church of S. Maria di Loreto. In the cathedral of Ghent is his rococo tomb for Bishop Triest a good work in its own style. Duquesnoy was a contemporary of Bernini and a friend of Le Poussain, who recommended him to Cardinal Richelieu. The sculptor was about to start for Paris when death overtook hirn at Leghorn. It is reported that he was poisoned by his own brother, Jérôme, who was also a clever sculptor (b. 1612, burned for unnatural crime, 24 Oct., 1654). François is famous for his beautiful sporting children in marble and bronze, his ivory carvings for drinking-cups, etc. The figure known to the populace of Brussels as the "Mannecken" is commonly attributed to him.

M.L. HADLEY

Narcisco Duran

Born 16 December, 1776, at Castellon de Ampurias, Catalonia, Spain; died 1 June, 1846. He entered the Franciscan Order at Gerona, 3 May 1792, volunteered for the Indian Missions, was incorporated into the Franciscan Missionary College of San Fernando in the City of Mexico, and in 1806 came to California. He was assigned to Mission San José and toiled there among the Indians until April, 1833, when he retired to Mission Santa Barbara. As early as 1817 Father Sarriá, the comisario prefecto, recommended Duran for higher offices. Father Payeras, the comisario prefecto in 1820, likewise held him worthy and capable of any office. Towards the end of 1824 the College of San Fernando elected him presidente of the missions, which post held with the exception of one term (1828-1831) until 1838. From 1844 till his death in 1846 he again held this office, and from 1837 to 1843 he was also comisario prefecto of the Fernandinos, i.e. Franciscans subject to the college in Mexico, who were in charge of the missions in Southern California. During the troublous times of the secularization and sale of the missions it was Father Duran who fought the pillagers step by step, though in vain, and fearlessly unmasked the real aims of the despoilers. His numerous letters to the Government on the subject are masterpieces of close reasoning, pungent sargueroa recommended the exile of Father, Duran, but the Mexican Government allowed him to remain unmolested at Mission Santa Barbara until his death. Six weeks previous to this the dying Bishop of California had appointed Father Duran vicar-general, and for a month he held the office of administrator of the diocese. His body was placed in the vault beneath the sanctuary of the mission church. He was almost the last survivor of the Fernandinos, and for virtue, learning, and missionary zeal ranks with the most brilliant of his predecessors.

ZEPHYRIN ENGELHARDT

Durand Ursin

A Benedictine of the Maurist Congregation, b. 20 May, 1682, at Tours; d. 31 Aug., 1771, at Paris. He took vows in the monastery of Marmoutier at the age of nineteen and devoted hirnself especially to the study of diplomatics. In April, 1709, he joined his confrère Edmond Martène, who was making a literary tour through France with the purpose of collecting material for a new edition of a "Gallia Christiana". After searching the archives of more than eight hundred abbeys and one hundred cathedral churches, they returned in 1713 to the monastery of St-Germain-des-Prés, laden with all kinds of valuable historical documents, many of which were included in "Gallia Christiana", while the others were published in a separate work, entitled "Thesaurus novus Anecdotorum" (5 vols. folio, Paris, 1717). In 1718 the two Maurists started on a new literary tour through Germany and the Netherlands to collect material for Bouquet's "Rerum Gallicarum et Francicarum Scriptores". Besides collecting valuable material for Bouquet's work they gathered an immense mass of other historical documents which they publisbed in a large work entitled "Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum historicorum, dogmatiorum et moralium amplissima collectio" (9 vols. fol. Paris, 1724-33). They also jointly published in French a learned account of their journeys: "Voyage littéraire de deux Religieux Bénédictins de la Congrégation de St. Maur" (2 vols. Paris, 1717 and 1724). In addition to the works which Durand published jointly with Martène, he also collaborated with Dantine and Clémencet in a French work on diplomatics, entitled "L'Art de vérifier les dates", continued Constant's "Collection of Papal Letters", assisted Sabatier with the edition of the "Itala" and contributed to many other Maurist publications. In 1734 he was banished from the monastery of St-Germain-des-Prés as a Jansenist "Appellant", at the instance of Cardinal de Bissy. He was sent to the monastery of St. Eloi in Noyon. After two years he was permitted to repair to the monastery of Blancs-manteaux in Paris; where he spent the remainder of his life in literary pursuits.

MICHAEL OTT

William Durandus

(Also: Duranti or Durantis). Canonist and one of the most important medieval liturgical writers; born about 1237, at Puimisson in the Diocese of Béziers, Provence; died at Rome, 1 November, 1296. He was called Speculator from the title of one of his works, Speculum Judiciale. He studied law at Bologna under Bernard of Parma and then taught it at Modena. Clement IV (Guy Foulques, 1265-1268, also a Provençal) summoned Durandus to Rome, ordained him subdeacon, and gave him titular canonries at Beauvais and Chartres. He was then attached to the papal curia as Auditor generalis causarum sacri palatii. He accompanied Gregory X (1271-1276) to the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and as the pope s secretary, drew up its decrees. In 1279 he was made dean of Chartres, but did not reside there. At about the same time he went to Romagna as papal governor and succeeded in subduing a rebellion under Guy of Montefeltro. He destroyed Guy's fortress della Ripa and founded in its place the town of Urbania In 1286 he was elected bishop by the chapter of Mende (Mimatum) in the province of Narbonne, but did not go into residence till 1291. Meanwhile his diocese was administered by his nephew, William Durandus the younger. In 1295 he was again in Italy (under Boniface VIII, 1294-1303) as governor of Romagna and Ancona, where the Ghibellines were again in rebellion. He refused the pope's offer to make him Archbishop of Ravenna, came to Rome, and died there. There is no reason to suppose that Durandus belonged to any religious order, though he has been claimed by both the Dominicans and the Austin Canons. He is buried at Rome in Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, where a long epitaph tells the story of his life and gives a list of his works.

Of these works the most famous is the Rationale divinorum officiorum (first ed. by Fust and Schoeffer at Mainz, 1459, and reprinted frequently). It was written in 1286. Its eight books contain a detailed account of the laws, ceremonies, customs, and mystical interpretation of the Roman Rite.

• Book I treats of the church, altar, pictures, bells, churchyard, etc.;
• II of the ministers;
• III of vestments;
• IV of the Mass;
• V of the canonical hours;
• VI of the Proprium Temporis;
• VII of the Proprium Sanctorum; and
• VIII of the astronomical calendar, manner of finding Easter, Epacts, etc.

Durandus's Rationale is the most complete medieval treatise of its kind; it is still the standard authority for the ritual of the thirteenth century and for the symbolism of rites and vestments. The allegorical explanation of vestments, for instance, as signifying virtues or the garments worn by Christ in His Passion, is taken from its third book. Other works are Speculum Legatorum, afterwards enlarged into Speculum Judiciale (four books), a treatise on the canonical rights of legates and the forms of canonical processes (first ed. at Strasburg in 1473; Frankfort, 1668); Breviarium, sive Repertorium juris canonici (Rome, 1474), Breviarium glossarum et textuum juris canonici (Paris, 1519), both commentaries on the decretals, arranged in the same order, and Commentarius in canones Concilii Lugdunensis II (Fano, 1569, with a life of the author by Simon Majolus), a semi-official exposition of the canons of the Second Council of Lyons. Durandus s epitaph also mentions a Pontificale, which is now lost. For works wrongly attributed to him see Schulte (op. cit. infra.), II, 155-156.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

William Durandus, the Younger

Died 1328, canonist, nephew of the famous ritualist and canonist of the same name (with whom he is often confounded). He was at first archdeacon of Mende, Languedoc, under his uncle and was appointed bishop of that see by Boniface VIII, in 1296, after the uncle's death. He was present at the Council of Vienne in 1311-1312. the pope (John XXII, 1316-1334) and the King of France (Charles IV, 1316-1328) sent him on an embassy to the Sultan Orkhan (1326-1360) at Brusa, to obtain more favourable conditions for the Latins in Syria. He died on the way back, in Cyprus (1328). He wrote, by command of Clement V (1305-1314), a work: "Tractatus de modo concilii generalis celebrandi et de corruptelis in ecclesia reformandis", in three books. It is a treatise on the canonical process of summoning and holding general councils, gathered from approved sources with many quotations and illustrations from the Fathers and from church history, together with attacks on various abuses and corruptions that were common in the fourteenth century among ecclesiastical persons. The first edition was printed at Lyons in 1531, then again at Paris by Philip Probus, a canonist of Bourges, in 1545, and dedicated to Pope Paul III (1534-1549) as a help towards the Council of Trent. Other editions, Paris, 1671, etc.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE.

Durandus of Saint-Pourçain

Philosopher and theologian, b. at Saint-Pourçain, Auvergne France; d. 13 September, 1332, at Meaux. He entered the Dominican Order at Clermont and obtained the doctor's degree at Paris in 1313. John XXII called him to Avignon as Master of the Sacred Palace, where he expounded the Scriptures. In 1318 he was consecrated Bishop of Le Puy-en-Velay and was transferred to Meaux in 1326. He is known as Doctor Resolutissimus owing to his strenuous advocacy of certain opinions novel to the Schoolmen of his day. His writings include commentaries on the "Sentences" (Paris, 1508); "De origine jurisdictionum" (Paris, 1506); and a treatise on the condition of holy souls after their separation from the body. His nominalism was so much opposed to the contemporary philosophic realism that the third period of Scholasticism is made to begin with him. He rejects both the sensible and the intelligible species, introduced, he says, to explain sense-perception, as also the active intellect. He denies the principle of individuation as distinct from the specific nature of the individual. In theology he argues for a separation of natural knowledge from that obtained through faith and revelation. Certain dogmas, as that of the Trinity, cannot be shown not to contain impossibilities, but to believe them, withal increases the merit of faith. Because the miracles of Christ do not prove His Divinity, His acceptance by the faithful enhances the merit of believing. After all, he says, theology is not strictly a science, since it rests on faith, not on the first principles of knowledge. In theology it is sufficient to know the idea of him who, being inspired, cannot err. He teaches, besides, that all actions proceed from God Who gives the power to act, but this is no immediate influx of the Creator upon the actions of the creature. The sacraments are only causes without which grace is not conferred. Marriage is not strictly a sacrament. He also insinuates that Christ could be present in the Eucharist with the substances of bread and wine remaining. Throughout, Durandus shows admirable submission to the corrective prerogative of the Church, the exercise of which was not unnecessary. By order of John XXII the treatise "De statu animarum" was examined and was found to contain eleven errors.

QUÉTIF-ECHARD, Scriptores O. P., I, 586; STÖCKL, Geschichte der Philosophie im M. A., II, 976; HAURÉAU, De la philosophie scolastique, Pt. II (Paris, 1880), II 3446; MORTIER, Histoire de mâitres géneraux de l'Ordre da Frères Prêcheurs (Paris, 1907) III, 69-86; La faculté de théologie de Paris et ses docteurs la plus célèbres, III, 401-408.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Durandus of Troarn

French Benedictine and ecclesiastical writer, b. about 1012, at Le Neubourg near Evreux; d. 1089, at Troarn near Caen. Affiliated from early childhood to the Benedictine community of Mont-Sainte-Cathérine and of Saint-Vandrille, he was made abbot of the newly founded Saint-Martin of Troarn by William, Duke of Normandy, in whose esteem he stood on a par with Lanfranc, Anselm, and Gerbert. Ordericus Vitalis calls him ecclesiastici cantus et dogmatis doctor peritissimus. Of his achievements in sacred music we know nothing beyond that mention, but we have his "Liber de Corpore et Sanguine Domini" (P.L., CXLIX, 1375) against Berengarius. The ninth and last part of it contains precious historical information about the heresiarch. In Durandus's mind Berengarius is a figurist pure and simple, after the manner of Scotus Eriugena, whose now lost book he is said to have possessed and used. In the rest of his book Durandus follows Paschasius, whom he somewhat emphatically styles Divini sacramenti scrutator diligentissimus discussorque catholicus, and from whom he borrows both his patristic apparatus and his theological views. Turmel, however, notes that Durandus quotes new texts of Bede, Amalarius, Fulbert de Chartres, and St. John Chrysostom. His presentation of the Eucharistic dogma is frankly Ambrosian, i.e. he maintains with Paschasius and Gerbert the conversion of the bread and wine into the identical body and blood of Christ, thus excluding the Augustinian theory of the Praesentia spiritalis still held by some of his contemporaries and contributing to prepare the definition of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Durandus explains with skill the Augustinian texts, chiefly in the "De doctrinâ christianâ" and the "Letter to Boniface", misused by Berengarius; but in the last analysis he appeals to the argument of authority already used by Guitmond (P.L., CXLIX, 1415): "The saintly Doctor of Hippo, wearied by the labours of composition, fails at times to clearly bring out his thought. Hence he may appear obscure to the unlearned and even become a source of error. If perchance he should have erred in so great a mystery, we should then bethink ourselves of the Apostolic saying: 'But though an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which you have received, let him be anathema'" (loc. cit., 1415). Durandus wrote also against Berengarius a poem of 900 verses, of which twenty-five preface the above treatise and thirteen are quoted in Mabillon's "Annales" (LXIV, 119), the rest being unpublished. Migne (loc. cit.) appends to the "Liber" two epitaphs composed by Durandus, one for Abbot Ainard and the other for the Countess Mabile. (See BERENGARIUS OF TOURS.)

J. F. SOLLIER.

Durango

(DURANGUM)

Archdiocese located in north-western Mexico. The see was created 28 Sept., 1620, seventy-two years after the Friars Diego de la Cadena and Gerónimo de Mendoza had established the San Juan Bautista de Analco mission in the valley of the Sierra Madre. The city of Durango was founded in 1554 by the Spanish captain Ibarra, and served at once as a centre for numerous missionaries, whose efforts to convert the natives were so successful that under Philip III the Diocese of Guadalajara was divided by Paul V, and Durango was raised to episcopal rank. The first bishop, Gonzalo Hernandez y Hermosillo, devoted much time to the evangelization and spiritual welfare of the Indians. In the beginning the Diocese of Durango included New Mexico (Santa Fe), Chihuahua, and Sonora; eventually these were made independent sees. Durango was made an archdiocese by Leo XIII (23 June, 1891), and now includes all the State of Durango and part of Zacatecas, with Sonora, Chihuahua, and Sinaloa for suffragans. The first archbishop was Vicente Salinas. Among the remarkable bishops of the see were the scholarly Gorospe, to whom the city owes its canal; the famous writer Legaspi, who began the cathedral that was finished and consecrated by Antonio Zubiría y Escalante, and lately decorated anew by Archbishop Santiago Zubiría y Manzanera. The Catholic press is represented by "El Domingo", and the "Boletin Eclesiastico". Besides the Escuelas Guadalaupanas there are two colleges, the Colegio Guadalupano and a college of the Brothers of Mary. The territory of the diocese is quite mountainous and is watered only by a few streams, but is well adapted for grazing. There are many rich mines of gold, silver, and iron. In 1900 the population of the State of Durango was 307,274, that of the city 31,092. The latter, known also as Guadiana and Ciudad de Victoria, stands picturesquely at 6700 feet above sea-level, and has several important industries and a large trade in cattle and leather.

REGINALDO GUERECA.

Durazzo

ARCHDIOCESE OF DURAZZO (DYRRACHIENSIS).

The Archdiocese of Durazzo in Albania, situated on the Adriatic, has a good port, and is the chief town of a sandjak in the vilayet of Scutari; the population is about 9000. According to Appian it was founded by a barbarian king, Epidamnus, after whom it was called Epidamnum; it then took the name of Dyrrachium, from Dyrrachus, nephew of a daughter of Epidamnus, to whom was due its port. According to Thucydides and Strabo it was more probably a colony of Coreyra. It was one of the causes of the Peloponnesian War. Conquered by the kings of Illyria, when attacked by the Romans, it surrendered to the latter and received from Rome many privileges. Its port was important for communication with Greece. Cicero and Pompey in their disgrace took refuge at Dyrrachium. When towards the end of the fourth century the empire was divided into two parts, the city fell to the Eastern empire. The Byzantine emperors made it a strong fortress, and Anastasius I, was born there. After the seventh century it was the centre of a theme; in 1011 its governors received the title of dukes. Under Michael the Paphlagonian (1034-1041) it was occupied by the Bulgarians; in 1042 it was retaken by the Greeks. In 1082 it was captured by Robert Guiscard, who defeated Alexius Comnenus under its walls; at the death of Robert it fell again into the power of the Greeks, who held it till the capture of Constantinople by the Latins (1204). From 1206 to 1294 it belonged to the despots of Epirus. It was then conquered by the Angevin kings of Naples, who gave it as a fief to princes of their family; the descendants of these rulers kept the title of "Duras" even when they no longer held the city. The effective lordship passed to the Thopias about the middle of the fourteenth century. In 1373 the city was occupied by the Balsas of the Zetta, in 1386 by the Venetians, and finally, in 1501, by the Turks.

The church of Durazzo is the most ancient in Albania. According to local tradition the first bishop of the country was St. Caesarius, one of the Seventy Disciples. St. Astius, his successor, is said to have suffered martyrdom under Trajan about A.D. 100. A list of the Greek bishops is in Lequien (Oriens Christianus, II, 240-247), but it is very incomplete. Durazzo is even yet a metropolis for the Greeks. Under Eucharius, who attended the Council of Ephesus, 431, it was the metropolis of Epirus Nova or Illyria Graeca. The see, long disputed between the Greeks, the Bulgarians, and Serbs, remained finally in the hands of the first named. Its bishops, who as early as 519 had sided with Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople, against Pope Hormisdas, followed the schism of Michael Caerularius in the eleventh century. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, after the Latin conquest of Constantinople, a Latin see was established there (1209). The Latin succession was often interrupted, on account of political changes; the actual (1908) archbishop is the fifty-second of the list (Lequien, III, 950-954; Gams, I, 407; II, 87; Eubel, I, 241; II, 164). The episcopal residence was likewise subject to several removals; after the Turkish conquest the archbishops transferred it to Corbina (1509), then to Canovia; to-day they reside at Delbenisti. Durazzo had originally but one suffragan, Cernicum or Tzernicum, site unknown. Later it had Prisca, Croia, Alessio, and Canovia. To-day Alessio only is subject to the Archbishop of Durazzo, but his power over it has been so limited by Propaganda that he may be considered an archbishop without a suffragan.

There are in the archdiocese about 250,000 inhabitants, of whom about 140,000 are Mussulmans (Turks and chiefly Albanese), 95,000 Greeks or Graecized Albanese, 14,000 Catholics (Albanese, except a few Italians and Austrians). There are also at Elbassan about 150 recently converted Greeks. The diocese has no seminary, but some students are sent to the seminary of Scutari. It has 20 priests, of whom 13 are secular priests, 22 parishes, 46 churches or chapels, 39 stations, 5 schools for boys and 1 for girls (the latter conducted by Sisters of Charity of Agram). Franciscan friars have charge of several parishes.

L. PETIT

Elisha John Durbin

The "Patriarch-priest of Kentucky", born 1 February, 1800, in Madison County, in that State, of John D. Durbin, son of Christopher Durbin, pioneer, and Patience, Logsdon; died in 1887 at Shelbyville, Kentucky. In 1816 he was sent to the preparatory seminary of St. Thomas, in Nelson County, where he spent about four years of manual labour and study under such distinguished missionaries as David Flaget, Felix de Andreis, and Joseph Rosati; thence he went to the near-by Seminary of St. Joseph, at Bardstown, where, in 1821-1822, he had as an instructor Francis Patrick Kenrick, later Bishop of Philadelphia and Archbishop of Baltimore. He was ordained priest in Bardstown, by Bishop David, 21 September, 1822. Early in 1824 Bishop Flaget entrusted him the pastoral care of western and southwestern Kentucky, about thirty counties, with an area of over 11,000 square miles, nearly one-third of the State. Then began a missionary career of over sixty years hardly paralleled in the United States, and that subsequently won for him the names of "Apostle of Western Kentucky" and "Patriarch-Priest of Kentucky". Union County was the centre of his mission. From it he journeyed on horseback over his vast territory, erected churches, established stations, formed congregations, and visited isolated families. In the beginning duty called him beyond his mission proper into Indiana, and once a year to Nashville, Tennessee. He traversed his extensive and sparsely settled mission incessantly for over sixty years, his churches, stations, and the rude homes of his poor flock his only abiding places. Occasionally a communication from him would appear in the press, and then only in defence of truth or outraged justice. When he did write, he wrote cogently and elegantly. Enfeebled by age, his sturdy constitution gave way in 1884, when his bishop, yielding to his entreaties, assigned him the small mission at Princeton, Kentucky. After a stroke of paralysis he was given, in 1885, the chaplaincy of an academy, at Shelbyville, Kentucky, where he died.

LOUIS G. DEPPEN

Albrecht Dürer

Celebrated painter and engraver, born at Nuremberg, Germany, 21 May, 1471; died there, 6 April, 1528. Dürer left his native city, then famous for its commerce, learning, and art, but three times in his life. His first journey was undertaken after he had completed his apprenticeships both to his father, a goldsmith, and to the painter and engraver Wohlgemut; on this occasion, he traveled through Germany and visited at Colmar and Basle the family of the recently deceased Schongaur; in 1505-07 he spent some time in Venice; in 1520-21 he went to the Netherlands, visiting especially Antwerp.

FIRST PERIOD (BEFORE 1505)

After the earliest works of his youth (portraits, Madonnas, coats-of-arms, landscape-sketches) he set up in 1494 a studio of his own. In the same year he married Agnes Frey but they had no children. Among his Nuremberg friends the learned humanist Willibald Pirkheimer held the first place. Besides great advancement in learning, Dürer owed to Pirkheimer the happiness of a lifelong friendship and the acquaintance with classical antiquity which he occasionally drew upon in his work. Dürer's art, however, with its sources in the German Middle Ages, remained essentially German; the influence of the art of Italy and the Netherlands was merely supplementary. In his own century there were few chances for mural paintings; but the demand for altar-pieces and portraits was all the greater. His woodcuts were eagerly sought after by the general public, his engravings on copper by connoisseurs. Among his fine compositions are: the Baumgartner altar-painting, the central panel of which represents the Adoration of the Christ Child, the wings the donors as Sts. George and Eustacious; the "Lamentation of Christ" in which the pathos is noteworthy; and the remarkable picture of himself (1500). These are preserved in the Alte Pinakothek in Munich. The portrait of himself just mentioned is greatly idealized as is also that of a lady of the Furleger family. On the other hand in the portraits of his father and mother realism predominates. But here, as in the "Prodigal Son." and in his drawings, Dürer seeks to elevate his naturalism by sweet simplicity, depth of feeling, and grandeur of conception. The "Adoration of the Magi" in the Uffizi at Florence will bear comparison, at least for German taste, with the masterpieces of Italy and the Netherlands. Dürer's own woodcuts have a quality entirely their own; though without colouring, they yet produced the effect of colour. "The Apocalypse" (15 cuts) is distinguished by its daring fancy and grandeur of composition . The most striking of the series are: the "Four Riders", the "Angels of the Euphrates", and the "Battle of the Angels with the Dragon". To the same period belong, for the most part, the powerful "Larger Passion" (7, later 20, cuts) as well as the beautiful "Life of the Virgin" (16, later 20, cuts), in which the scenes from the life of the Holy Family in Egypt have all the sweetness of a charming idyll. Mention should be made of the so-called "Green Passion" in the Albertina Museum at Vienna, a series of twelve drawings with pen on green paper, also of the "Smaller Passion" of a later date in 37 woodcuts, and of the 17 copperplate engravings on the same subject. For the fifth time the artist came back to the Passion of Christ eight years before his death; a few sketches are to be found in the Uffizi at Florence and in the Albertina at Vienna. Wood and copperplate engraving were brought to great perfection by Dürer; the latter, and etchings as well, by his own work; the former by his directions to the wood-engravers who carried out his designs.

SECOND PERIOD (1605-1620)

In "The Festival of the Rosary", painted in Venice for German merchants residing there, he competes, not unsuccessfully, with the Italian colourists, though it may be said that colour was not his strong point. The painting (Abbey of Strahow, Prague) is damaged, but a good copy is preserved in the Imperial Museum at Vienna. An oil painting of the same period, "Christ on the Cross", and other works that followed, e.g. "Adam and Eve" (Madrid and Florence), show that Dürer's trip to Italy and the acquaintance made there with Giovanni Bellini were not without profit to his art; but Dürer's nationality and the independence of his genius are always evident. Another work much admired was the so-called Heller altar-piece, destroyed in Munich in 1674 by fire. Valuable studies for this picture and an indistinct copy are still extant. One of the finest examples of German art is the "Adoration of the Trinity" or "All Saints" (1511). Placed beside the "Disputa" of Raphael or the Sistine paintings of Michaelangelo, produced in the same year, it would not suffer from the comparison. God the Father sits upon a throne and holds forth the Cross with the Crucified; above both of them, in the form of a dove, the Holy Ghost hovers. About them the saints of heaven in two companies with the Mother of God and John the Baptist at their head kneel in adoration. In the upper part of the picture, above the blessed hosts, choirs of angels surround the Holy Trinity; in the lower part, the Church Militant, led by the powerful figure of a pope and an emperor, takes part in the adoration. As an idealization of the world this multitude stands above the clouds. At the very bottom and to one side, as though left behind, is seen the humble figure of the painter. This work deserves no less praise for its perfection of finish than for its sublimity of conception. The frame, carved in Renaissance style from drawings by Dürer, is still preserved at Nuremberg. In the same year, 1511, Dürer produced the "Virgin with the Pear", one of the finest of his Madonnas. In the years 1513-14 he executed three great copperplate engravings: these may, perhaps, be looked upon as ideal representations of a fearless knight, an unsatisfied searcher for knowledge, and a saint happy in God and are called: "The Knight with Death and the Devil"; "Melancholia"; "Saint Jerome in His Study". To these must be added various paintings, e.g. of Charlemagne, Sigmund, and Albrecht of Brandenburg; further, the marginal drawings, displaying much fancy and humour, made for Maximillian's "Prayer Book", and the "Triumphal Arch of Maximillian" belong to the same time. Later, Dürer worked also on the "Triumph of Maximillian", and produced the large "Triumphal Car", for the emperor.

THIRD PERIOD (1520-1528)

Admirable sketches for "St. Jerome with the Skull", lately discovered by Anton Weber in Lisbon, give ample proof of the artist's diligence during his stay in the Netherlands. The striking head of the saint is very like the "Head of an Old Man" in the Albertina. After his return to Nuremberg, Dürer painted a noteworthy "Head of Christ", and portraits of Pinkheimer, Erasmus, and Holzschuher. His last work of importance (1526) was the "Four Apostles", Peter with John and Paul with Mark; these paintings which are now in Munich, are much admired for the individuality of character expressed by the figures and the fine treatment of the drapery. From the inscription under these pictures, despite the fact that Peter is represented as holding the keys of heaven, and from other circumstances that prove little, some have wished to infer that towards the end of his life became attached to the doctrines of Luther. But even the Protestants van Eye, A. W. Becker, C, Kinkle, and others, do not share in this opinion, and M. Thausing, the great Dürer scholar, has now rejected it. No doubt many well-disposed persons of the time saw the necessity of ecclesiastical reform and hoped it would be hastened by Luther's stand. But they were deceived and acknowledged it, as Pirkheimer did for himself and his friend: "I confess that in the beginning I believed in Luther, like our Albert of blessed memory...but as anyone can see, the situation has become worse." In the years 1525-27, Dürer wrote three books: on geometry, the proportions of the human figure, and the art of fortification.

SINGER, Versuch einer Dürer Bibliographie in Studien sur deutches Kunstgeschichte (1905); CONWAY, Literary Remains of Albrecht Dürer (Cambridge 1889); CUST, Albrecht Dürer, A Study of His Life and Works (London 1897); KNACKFUSS, A. Dürer (6th ed., 1899), tr. DODGESON (LONDON, 1900); WEBER, A. Dürer (3rd ed. Ratisbon, 1903); Collection of drawings by LIPPMANN (4 vols.); of woodcuts LUTZOW; of copperplates and etchings LUTZOW and SOLDAU; of letters and diaries, THAUSUNG.

G. GIETMANN

Durham (Dunelmum)

Ancient Catholic Diocese of Durham (Dunelmensis).

This diocese holds a unique position among English bishoprics. Owing to its geographical position on the Scottish border, the successive bishops were led to assume constitutional and political functions in addition to their spiritual office. Consequently their rights and privileges were peculiar and extensive; and even to this day the Anglican Bishop of Durham has precedence over all other English prelates except those of Canterbury, York, and London. The diocese is the lineal continuation of the Anglo-Saxon See of Lindisfarne, founded by St. Aidan in 635, when he came from the monastery of Iona at the request of St. Oswald, King of Northumbria, to evangelize that newly conquered heathen kingdom. He built his monastery on the Island of Lindisfarne, now Holy Island, off Northumbria. Thus Northumbrian Christianity was of Celtic origin and followed the Celtic use as to the observance of Easter and other matters. But in the south the Roman use prevailed and conflict became inevitable. The controversy arose in the time of St. Colman, the third bishop, and was settled in 664 at the Synod of Whitby when the Roman use was adopted. Shortly after, St. Colman resigned the episcopate and the see was transferred to York, with St. Wilfrid as bishop.

In 678, St. Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, cut off from it two new sees, one for the Lundiswaras of Lincolnshire and the other for Bernicia. In 680 the Bernician see was subdivided into the Dioceses of Lindisfarne and Hexham, while finally a separate bishopric was created for the Southern Pics. So that when St. Cuthbert became Bishop of Lindisfarne the diocese was only a fragment of what it had been under St. Aidan. In the ninth century when the Danes repeatedly harassed Northumbria, the Diocese of Hexham ceased to have a separate existance, and about 820 was merged in that of York. In 875, Eardulf, Bishop of Lindisfarne, was driven from his see, and taking the body of St. Cuthbert, he with his monks fled from the Danes. After wandering seven years they found a resting place at Chester-le-Street (882); and from here Eardulf and his eight immediate successors ruled the see. In 995 Bishop Aldhun again found himself defenseless before the Danes and fled with St. Cuthbert's body to Ripon. When peace was restored, he was returning to Chester-le-Street when miraculous signs were given that the body of the saint was to remain where the city of Durham now stands. A stone chapel was built to receive the remains of St. Cuthbert's body and Aldhun began a great church where the cathedral now is, which was finished and consecrated in 999. In this way Aldhun became the first Bishop of Durham.

The followins a list of the bishops with the dates of their accession.

Bishops of Lindisfarne

• St. Aidan, 635
• St. Finan, 652
• St. Colman, 661
• Tuda, 664
• St. Eata, 678
• St. Cuthbert, 685
• St. Eadbert, 688
• Eadfrid, 698
• St. Ethelwold, 724
• Cynewulf, 740
• Higbald, 780
• Egbert, 803
• Heathured (otherwise Egfrid), 821
• Ecgred, 830
• Eanbert, 845
• Eardulf, 854

Chester-le-Street

• Cutheard, 900
• Tilred, 915
• Wilgred, 928
• Uchtred, 944
• Sexhelm, 947
• Aldred, 947
• Elfdig, 968
• Aldhun or Aldwin, 990

Bishops of Durham

• Aldhun came to Durham, 995
• Vacancy, 1018
• Eadmund, 1021
• Eadred, 1041
• Egelric, 1042
• Egelwin, 1056
• Walcher, 1071
• William de S. Carilef, 1080
• Vacancy, 1096
• Rannulf Flambard, 1099
• Vacancy, 1129
• Galfrid Rufus (Lord Chancellor), 1133
• Vacancy and usurpation
• of Cumin, 1140
• William de S. Barbara, 1143
• Hugh de Pudsey, 1153
• Vacancy, 1194
• Philip de Pictavia (el. 1195, cons. 1197)
• Vacancy, 1208
• Richard de Marisco (Lord Chancellor), 1217
• Vacancy, 1226
• Richard Poor, 1228
• Vacancy, 1237
• Nicholas de Farnham, 1241
• Walter de Kirkham, 1249
• Robert de Stitchill, 1260
• Robert de Insula, 1274
• Antony Beck, 1283
• Richard de Kellaw, 1311
• Lewis de Beaumont, 1318
• Richard de Bury (Lord Chancellor), 1333
• Thomas de Hatfield, 1345
• John Fordham, 1382
• Walter Skirlaw, 1388
• Thomas Langley (Lord Chancellor) (afterwards Cardinal), 1406
• Robert Neville, 1438
• Laurence Booth (Lord Chancellor), 1457
• William Dudley, 1476
• Vacancy, 1483
• John Sherwood, 1485
• Richard Fox, 1494
• William Sever, 1502
• Vacancy, 1505
• Christopher Bainbridge (Afterwards Cardinal), 1507
• Vacancy, 1508
• Thomas Ruthall, 1509
• Thomas Wolsey (already Cardinal and Abp. Of York), 1523
• Cuthbert Tunstall, 1530

THE CATHEDRAL

The first Norman bishop, Walcher, was murdered by the people in 1080, and was succeeded by William de S. Carilef, who began the present cathedral, the foundation being laid 29 July, 1093. He also replaced the secular cathedral clergy by Benedictine monks from Jarrow and Wearmouth. The situation of the cathedral is very remarkable, as it stands high on the cliff overhanging the river, and the building itself is most imposing., with its noble proportions, and what Dr. Johnson called its appearance of "rocky solidity and of indeterminate duration". Bishop Carilef died shortly after beginning it; but the building was carried on with energy by the next bishop, the infamous Rannulf Flambard. He built the nave and aisles and the lower part of the west front, and in 1104 the shrine of St. Cuthbert was transferred to the new cathedral. In 1143 the see was usurped by William Cumin, chancellor of the King of Scotland, who for sixteen months violently kept the rightful bishop out of possession. This interfered with the building, but the next bishop, Hugh de Pudsy, was a great builder, and among his additions is the "Galilee Chapel", a unique specimen of transitional work. Another special feature of Durham cathedral is the eastern transept, know as the "Chapel of Nine Altars", built by Bishop Poor about 1230. The central tower (214 feet) was rebuilt towards the end of the fifteenth century. The bishops also built their own half-regal residence, Durham Castle, and the extensive buildings of the monastery, portions of which still remain. The relations between the bishops and the monks were frequently very strained, especially in the time of the warrior-prelate, Antony Beck, though bishops like Richard Poor, Richard de Kellaw, or the scholar Richard de Bury, lived in harmony with them.

CIVIL JURISDICTION OF THE BISHOPRIC OF DURHAM

The twofold jurisdiction of the bishops of Durham was clearly recognized by the law from early times. In the reign of Edward I the Rolls of Parliament state: "Episcopus Dunelmensis duos habet status, videlicet, statem episcopi quoad spiritualia et statum comitis palacii quoad tenementa sua temporalia." But the original of this civil jurisdiction has never been ascertained. According to one theory it represents local survival of the old Northumbrian Kingdom. According to another view it was conferred by grant of some king, Alfred or, more plausibly, William the Conqueror. There is however, no historical trace of such grant, and recent research makes it more probable that it is a development of immunities granted to the Bishopric of Durham. Even before the Conquest the bishops held large endowments of land known as the patrimony of St. Cuthbert, Terra or Patrimonium Sancti Cuthbert. Therefore the diocese possessed large franchise or immunity both as against the sovereign power of the King of England and the local rights of the Earl of Northumberland. Thus the bishopric was not included in the Domesday Book, and even at the time of the Conquest the county of Durham was governed by the bishop with almost complete local independence. These extreme rights were strengthened by the fact that the bishops frequently had to repel Scottish invasions, by their own forces and at their own expense, which fostered both the military and financial independence of the palatinate. The strong feeling of Northumbrian independence also prevented the formation of any firm ties with the English sovereigns, until the masterful policy of Henry II brought Durham into subordination to the central government. But this subordination was exceedingly limited even then, and the bishopric escaped the deprivation of its privileges which befell many other franchises at that time. This was due to Bishop Hugh de Pudsey, who was the king's cousin and personal friend, and who took care as time went on to obtain the charters necessary to safeguard the liberties of his see.

These were most considerable. First, the bishop had within the bishopric every right that the king had in the country: Quicquid rex habet extra episcopus habet intra. He was therefore the head of the civil government, with appointment of all civil officers. The bishop's writ, not the king's, ran within the bishopric, and the "Bishop's peace" was regarded as different from the "King's peace" until the time of Henry VIII. Offenders and lawbreakers were tried in the bishop's court and if necessary punished by his officials. Forfeiture for treason and forfeitures of war were both his right, and he could create corporations, and erect fairs and markets. He did not, however, have the right of making treaties with foreign powers, though instances of attempted secret treaties with Scotland are not wanting. The bishops had their own mint, and their coinage bears their initials on the reverse of each coin. From the feudal point of view the bishops were very strong, as he was the universal landlord, and all land was held mediately or immediately of him and not of the king. From this follows his rights of wardship, rights to all mines and to treasure-trove, as well as his extensive forest rights. At law he could stay procedure against offenders, grant pardons, and even suspend the application of a statute. He had courts of common law, equity, and admiralty, besides his spiritual courts; and he regulated the relations between the latter and the temporal courts.

Thus, in theory, the bishop was as a king in his bishopric, but in practice his power was limited by the sovereign. In some instances the king actually infringed upon his rights, and in other cases there was conflict of jurisdiction. Up to the end of the thirteenth century the episcopal power developed in every way, then followed a period during which the kings somewhat unwillingly tolerated the position, for the sake of the convenience of having what amounted to a buffer state between England and Scotland, and also because it was difficult to solve a problem so beset with complications both ecclesiastical and feudal. Although it is sometimes stated that the bishops had a council in the nature of a parliament, it is becoming increasingly clear that we have here a confused tradition of two separate bodies -- the assembly and the council. The assembly (communitas) was practically the same gathering as the shiremoot in other counties. It raises money by taxation at both the request of the king and the bishop, and sometimes for its own purposes. But it was not a legislative assembly, since all general legislation applied to the palatinate, although Durham was not represented in Parliament till the time of the Stuarts. When Acts were not intended to apply to Durham express exemption was stated. The council was in origin a feudal body, chosen from the bishop's immediate followers and officials, the functions entrusted to it being the general administration of the palatinate, financial affairs, and the duty of advising the bishop. The judicial courts of the palatinate arose out of this body. Much of the civil and judicial independence of the palatinate was destroyed by the Act of Resumption passed in 1536, at the will of Henry VIII. By this act the bishop's semi-regal power was abolished. The see at this time was held by Cuthbert Tunstall, the venerable prelate who was the last Catholic bishop and who lived to witness the suppression of the monasteries, The Pilgrimage of Grace (1536), and finally the surrender of Durham Abbey (1540) which involved the spoliation of St. Cuthbert's shrine. During the reign of Edward VI he was imprisoned and an Act of Parliament was passed dissolving the bishopric and forming it into a county palatinate. After the brief respite of Mary's reign. Bishop Tunstall was deprived of his see by Elizabeth, July, 1559. With his death in confinement, on 18 Nov., the line of Catholic bishops ended. Ten years later during the "Rising of the North" the Catholics seized Durham cathedral, restored the altar, and publicly celebrate Mass, thus making it the last of the old English cathedrals in which Mass has been said.

In the bishopric there were six collegiate churches, Auckland, Darlington, Chester-le-Street, Lanchester, Norton, and Staindrop. The Benedictines held Durham Abbey, with the dependent houses of Jarrow, Wearmouth, and Finchale. There were Augustinians at Hexham and Brinkburn; Cistercians at Newminster; and Premonstratensians at Blanchland. Durham College (now Trinity), at Oxford, was greatly protected and helped by various bishops and priors of Durham, and possibly was originally a Durham foundation. The arms of the see are: azure, a cross between four lions rampant, or. The miter over the arms is encircled by a ducal coronet.

The Historical Works of Symeon of Durham in R.S.(1882-1885), the chief authority for the history of the see down to 1153. Subsequent events are recorded by Geoffrey of Coldingham, Liber de Statu Ecclaisiae Dunhelmensis (1152-1214); Robert de Graystanes, Historia de Statu Ecc. Dunhelm. (1214-1336); William de Chambre, Continuatio Historiae Dunhelmensis -- all three ed. By Raine and pub. By Surtees Society in Historiae Dunelmensis Scriptores Tres (London 1839), IX. Many other volumes of the SURTEES SOCIETY throw light on the history of the see. HUTCHINSON, History of the County of Durham (Newcastle, 1785-1794); SURTEES, History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, (London, 1816-1840); RINE, History and Antiquities of North Durham, (1852); LOW, Durham in S.P.C.K., Diocesan Hist. Series, (London, 1881); BYEGATE, Durham: the Cathedral and See (London, 1889); LAPSLEY, The County Palatine of Durham in Harvard Historical Studies (London, 1900); VIII, a most valuable work on the constitutional powers of the bishops of Durham, with very full bibliography and an appendix on the Records of the Palatinate. -- For Durham Liturgy see Rituale Ecclesiae Dunelmensis, SURTEES Soc. (London, 1839),X, and Rites of Durham, SURTEES Soc. (London, 1842), XV. The Durham Breviary is announced for publication by the HENRY BRADSHAW SOCIETY. -- For the Episcopal Coinage see RUDING, Annals of the Coinage of Great Britain, II; LEAKE, Historical Account of English Money; NOBLE, Two Dissertations on the Mint of the Episcopal-Palatines of Durham; BARTLETT. Episcopal Coins of Durham in Archaeologia (1778), reprinted (Newcastle, 1817), and LAPSLEY, op. Cit., VII. The general literature on the subject is very large. See THOMPSON, Reference Catalogue of Books on Durham and Northumberland (Newcastle-on-Tyne,1888).

EDWIN BURTON

Durham Rite

The earliest document giving an account of liturgical services in the Diocese of Durham is the so-called "Rituale ecclesiæ Dunelmensis", also known as the "Ritual of King Ælfrith" [the King of Northumberland, who succeeded his brother Ecgfrith in 685, and who was a vir in scripturis doctissimus (Bede, Hist. Eccl., IV, xxvi)]. The Manuscript (in the library of Durham cathedral, A, IV, 19) is of the early ninth century. It contains capitula, chants, and especially collects, from the Epiphany to Easter, then a proprium sanctorum, a commune sanctorum, and many forms for blessings. The greater part has an interlinear Anglo-Saxon translation. At the end various scribes have used up the blank pages to write out a miscellaneous collection of hymns and exorcisms and a list of contractions used in books of canon law. Its connexion with Durham and Northumberland is shown by various allusions, such as that to St. Cuthbert in a collect (intercedente beato Cudbertho Sacerdote; p. 185 of the Surtees Soc. edition). This fragment represents the fusion of the Roman and Gallican uses that had taken place all over North-Western Europe since the Emperor Charles the Great (768-814) or even earlier (Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, 2nd ed., 89-99). Many parts of it exactly correspond to the Gregorian Sacramentary sent by Pope Adrian I to the emperor (between 784 and 791; Duchesne, op. cit., 114-119).

The great Benedictine monastery of Durham was founded by William of St. Carileph in 1083; he brought monks from Wearmouth and Jarrow to fill it. These monks served the cathedral till the suppression in 1538. The foundation of the cathedral was laid in 1093 and St. Cuthbert's body was brought to its shrine in 1104. A catalogue drawn up at Durham in 1395 gives a list of the books used by the monks for various services. Of such books not many remain. A Gradual of about the year 1500 with four leaves of a Tonarium is at Jesus College, Cambridge (Manuscript 22; Q. B. S.), and a Durham Missal written in the fourteenth century is in the British Museum (Harl. 5289). The parts of this Missal that correspond to Holy Week and Easter are printed in vol. CVII of the Surtees Society's publications (pp. 172-191; see also the "Westminster Missal", III, 1424, Henry Bradshaw Soc., 1897, where the Durham variants are given). But the most important document of this kind is the volume called "The Ancient Monuments, Rites and Customs of the Monastical Church of Durham before the Suppression". This book, written in 1593, exists in several manuscript copies and has been printed and edited on various occasions, lastly by the Surtees Society (vol. CVII, 1903; see bibliography). It is a detailed description, not only of the fabric of the cathedral, but also of the various rites, ceremonies, and special customs carried out by the monks who served it. From it we see that the Durham Rite was practically that of the North of England (corresponding in all its main points to that of York), with a few local modifications such as one would expect to find in a great and flourishing monastic church. The treatise begins with a description of the famous nine altars (ed. Surtees Soc., p. 7) and of the choir and high altar. The Blessed Sacrament was reserved in a silver pelican hung over the High Altar. It should be noted that a pelican in her piety was assumed as his arms by Richard Fox (Bishop of Durham, 1494-1502) and was constantly introduced into monuments built by him (so at Winchester and at Corpus Christi College, Oxford). The great paschal candlestick was a conspicuous and splendid feature of Easter ritual at Durham; it and the rite of the paschal candle are described in chapter iv (ed. cit., p. 10). The Office for Palm Sunday does not differ from that of Sarum and the other English uses (ed. cit., p. 179). On Maundy Thursday there was a procession with St. Cuthbert's relics. A special feature of the Good Friday service was the crucifix taken by two monks from inside a statue of Our Lady, for the Creeping to the Cross. On the same day the Blessed Sacrament was enclosed in a great statue of Christ on a side altar and candles were burned before it till Easter Day. The Holy Saturday service in the Durham Missal is given on pp. 185-187 of the Surtees Society edition. The monks sang the "Miserere" while they went in procession to the new fire. When the paschal candle is lit they sing a hymn, "Inventor rutili", with a verse that is repeated each time. There are only five Prophecies, and then follow the litanies. When "Omnes Sancti" is sung those who are to serve the Mass go out. The word Accendite is said and the candles are lighted. It is repeated three times; at the third repetition the bishop comes out to begin the Mass. All the bells (signa) are rung at the Kyrie eleison, the Gloria, and the Alleluia. Between three and four o'clock in the morning of Easter Day the Blessed Sacrament was brought in procession to the high altar, while they sang an antiphon, "Christus resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur", etc. Another statue of Christ Risen remained on the high altar during Easter week. On Ascension Day, Whit-Sunday, and Trinity Sunday processions went round the church, on Corpus Christi round the palace green, and on St. Mark's Day to Bow Church in the city (chs. lv, lvi). The rogation-days (three cross-daies) also had their processions. In all these the relics of St. Bede were carried and the monks appeared in splendid copes. The prior, especially, wore a cope of cloth of gold so heavy that he could only stand in it when it was supported by "his gentlemen" (ed. cit., p. 85). The prior had the right of wearing a mitre since Prior Berrington of Walworth (ch. lvi, ed. cit., p. 107).

Throughout the year the chapter Mass was sung at nine o'clock, Vespers at three p. m. On Thursdays, except in Advent, Septuagesima, and Lent, the Office of St. Cuthbert was sung in choir (ed. cit., p. 191). On Fridays there was a "Jesus-Mass" (a votive mass of the Holy Name), and the "Jesus-Antiphon" was sung after Complin (ed. cit., p. 220). This was also the custom at York, Lincoln, Lichfield, and Salisbury. On St. Cuthbert's Day (20 March) there was, naturally, a great feast and his relics were exposed. Chapter x (ed. cit., p. 16) describes the great book containing names of benefactors (Liber Vitæ) that was kept on the high altar, chapter xxi the forms for giving sanctuary to accused persons. They had to use the knocker, still shown to visitors, and, when they were received, to wear a black gown with a yellow cross "of St. Cuthbert" on the left shoulder (ed. cit., p. 41). No woman was allowed to approach the saint's tomb beyond a line of blue marble traced on the floor. To explain this, chapter xviii tells a legend about a king's daughter who falsely accused him and was eventually swallowed up by the earth. In the "Galilee" was a chapel of Our Lady for women (ch. xxii, ed. cit., p. 42). When a monk died his body was carried to St. Andrew's chapel, two monks watched before it all the time; after the dirge and the requiem Mass it was buried in the sanctuary garth with a chalice of wax laid on the breast (ch. xxiii). Priors were buried in the abbey church (xxv) and bishops in the sanctuary (xxvii). (See DURHAM, DIOCESE OF.)

The Anglo-Saxon Rituale ecclesiœ, Dunelmensis is published (from the Manuscript at Durham) by the SURTEES SOCIETY (vol. X, 1840), and was re-edited by SWEET in his Oldest English Texts (1885). The Ancient Monuments, Rites and Customs of the Monastical Church of Durham before the Suppression exists in a Manuscript of 1620 in the Cosin library at Durham (Manuscripts, B, II, 11) and in a Manuscript of 1656 belonging to Sir John LAWSON, Bart., of Brough Hall, Catterick (Fol., pp. 1-93). From these two texts the edition of the SURTEES SOCIETY has been printed (vol. CVII Rites of Durham, 1903). Other editions are: one curtailed and modernized by DAVIES (London, printed for W. Hensman in 1672); HUNTER, Durham Cathedral as it was before the dissolution of the monasteries (Durham, by J. ROSS for Mrs. Waghorn, 1733; reprinted, Durham, 1733); and SANDERSON, The Antiquities of the Abbey or Cathedral Church of Durham (Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1767). The Durham Obituary Roll (c. 1468) was edited by RAINE for the Surtees Society (vol. XXXI, 1856) and the Liber Vitœ, Ecclesiœ, Dunelmensis, from a ninth-century MANUSCRIPT, by STEVENSON for the same society (vol. XIII, 1841). The Surtees Society Catalogue (pp. 38, 115) gives a Durham Canon Missœ, bound up with a psalter, hymnary, and journal, of 1391 and 1416. Part of the Missal of the fourteenth century in the British Museum (Harl. 5289) is printed in vol. CVII of the Surtees Society (pp. 172-191). Occasional references to the Durham Rite will be found in ROCK, Church of our Fathers, ed. HART AND FRERE (4 vols., London, 1904). and in WORDSWORTH AND LITTLEDALE, The Old Service-books of the English Church (London, 1904).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE.

School of Durrow

(Irish Dairmagh, Plain of the Oaks)

The School of Durrow is delightfully situated in the King's County, a few miles from the town of Tullamore. St. Columba, who loved to build in close proximity to oak-groves, because of their natural beauty, as well as perhaps to divest them of their Druidic associations, found here, as in Derry, a site just after his heart. It was freely given to him by Aedh, son of Brendan, lord of the soil, in 553, and the saint lost no time in founding his monastery, which, with more or less constant personal supervision, he ruled till 563. When, in that year, either as a matter of penance, or as Adamnan says, "of choice for Christ's sake", he became an exile in the wilds of Scotland, he appointed a most estimable monk, Cormac Ua Liathain, to take his place. But owing to the jealousies that existed between the northern and the southern tribes, especially on the borderland, Cormac found it impossible to retain the office of prior, and so he fled from the monastery, leaving in charge a first cousin of Columba, Laisren by name, who, acceptable to both sides, governed the institution with conspicuous success. Durrow, during Columba's life and for centuries after his death, was a famous school, at one time being esteemed second to none in the country. The Venerable Bede styles it Monasterium nobile in Hiberniâ, and, at a later period, Armagh and itself were called the "Universities of the West. It will be ever noted for the useful and admirable practice of copying manuscripts, especially of the Sacred Scriptures, which had become quite a fine art amongst the masters and disciples there. Columba himself, who was an expert scribe, is generally credited with having written with his own hand the incomparable copy of the Four Gospels now known as the "Book of Durrow". It is a piece of the most exquisite workmanship, charming the mind as well as the eye with its intricate and highly ornamental details. An entry on the back of one of the folios of this remarkable book, which is now to be seen in Trinity College, Dublin, prays for a "remembrance of the scribe, Columba, who wrote this evangel in the space of twelve days"

Columba dearly loved Durrow. It held a place in his affections next to his own Derry, and while in Iona he manifested the tenderest interest in everything that concerned its welfare. When he was urging Cormac Ua Liathain to return to the monastery there, he recounted for him the manifold beauties of that "city devout, with its hundred crosses, without blemish, and without transgression", and added, "I pledge thee my unerring word, which may not be impugned, that death is better in reproachless Erin than life forever in Alba," Durrow, like Clonard, Derry, and the rest, was frequently ravaged by the Danish invaders, but its complete devastation was left for the fierce Norman invader, Hugh de Lacy. In 1186 he began the building of a castle for himself out of the stones of the dismantled monastery, but the axe of an Irish labouring man cut him short in his unholy work. The church and the school are long since gone; not a stone of the original building may now be found. There are, however, still to be seen at Durrow a churchyard, probably marking the ancient site, a Celtic cross, and a holy well, which will serve to keep the name and the fame of St. Columba fresh in the minds of the people forever.

ADAMNAN, Life of Columba, ed. REEVES (Dublin, 1857); also bY FOWLER (London, 1905); Life in The Book of Lismore; HEALY, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890); GILBERT, Facsimiles of Irish National MSS.; WHITLEY STOKES in Anecdota Oxoniensia (Oxford, 1890).

JOHN HEALY.

Duty

The definition of the term duty given by lexicographers is: "something that is due", "obligatory service"; "something that one is bound to perform or to avoid". In this sense we speak of a duty, duties; and, in general, the sum total of these duties is denoted by the abstract term in the singular. The word is also used to signify that unique factor of consciousness which is expressed in the foregoing definitions by "obligatory", "bound", "ought" by and "moral obligation". Let us analyse this datum of consciousness. When, concerning a contemplated acts one forms the decision "I ought to do it", the words express an intellectual judgment. But unlike speculative judgments, this one is felt to be not merely declaratory. Nor is it merely preferential; it asserts itself as imperative and magisterial. It is accompanied by a feeling impelling one, sometimes effectively, sometimes ineffectively to square his conduct with it. It presumes that there is a right way and a wrong way open, and that the right is better or more worthy than the wrong. All moral judgments of this kind are particular applications of a universal judgment which is postulated in each one of them: right is to be done; wrong is to be avoided. Another phenomenon of our moral consciousness is that we are tuted a hierarchical order among our feelings, appetites, and desires. We instinctively feel, for example, that the emotion of reverence is higher and nobler than the sense of humour; that it is more worthy of us as rational beings to find satisfaction in a noble drama than in watching a dog-fight; that the sentiment of benevolence is superior to that of selfishness. Furthermore we are conscious that, unless it has been weakened or atrophied by neglect, the sentiment attending moral judgments asserts itself as the highest of all; awakens in us the feeling of reverence; and demands that all other sentiments and desires, as motives of action, shall be reduced to subordination to the mural judgment. When action is conformed to this demand, there arises a feeling of self-approbation while an opposite course is followed by a feeling of self-reproach. Starting from this analysis we may expose the theory of duty according to Catholic ethics.

DUTY IN CATHOLIC ETHICS

The path of activity proper and congenial to every being is fixed and dictated by the nature which the being possesses. The cosmic order which pervades all the non-human universe is predetermined in the natures of the innumerable variety of things which make up the universe. For man, too, the course of action proper to him is indicated by the constitution of his nature. A great part of his activity is like the entire movements of the non-human world, under the iron grip of determinism; there are large classes of vital functions, over which he has no volitional control; and his body is subject to the physical laws of matter. But, unlike all the lower world, he is himself the master of his action over a wide range of life which we know as conduct. He is free to choose between two opposite courses; he can elect, in circumstances inumerable, to do or not to do; to do this action, or to do that other which is incompatible with it. Does then, his nature furnish no index for conduct? Is every form of conduct equally congenial and equally indifferent to human nature? By no means. His nature indicates the line of action which is proper, and the line which is abhorrent to it. This demand of nature is delivered partly in that hierarchical order which exists in our feelings and desires as motives of action partly through the reflective reason which decides what form of action is consonant with the dignity of a rational being, comprehensively, and with immediate practical application to actions in those moral judgments involving the "ought". This function of reason, aided thus by good will and practical experience, we call conscience (q.v.).

We have now reached the first strand of the bond which we know as moral obligation, or duty. Duty is a debt owed to the rational nature of which the spokesman and representative is conscience, which imperatively calls for the satisfaction of the claim. But is this the be-all and the end-all of duty? The idea of duty, of indebtedness, involves another self or person to whom the debt is due. Conscience is not another self, it is an element of one's own personality. How can one be said, except through a figure of speech, to be indebted to oneself? Here we must take into consideration another characteristic of conscience. It is that conscience in a dim, undefinable, but very real way, seems to set itself over against the rest of our personality. Its intimations awake, as no other exercise of our reason does, feelings of awe, reverence, love, fear, shame, such as are called forth in us by other persons, and by persons only. The universality of this experience is testified to by the expressions men commonly employ when speaking of conscience; they call it a voice, a judge, they say that they must answer to conscience for their conduct. Their attitude towards it is as to something not completely identical with themselves; its whole genesis is not to be accounted for by describing it as one function of life. It is the effect of education and training, some say. Certainly education and training may do a great deal to develop this impression that in conscience there is another self implicated beyond ourselves. But the quickness with which the child responds to its instructor or educator on this point proves that he feels within himself something which confirms his teacher's lesson. Ethical philosophers and conspicuously among them Newman, have argued that to him who listens reverently and obediently to the dictates of conscience, they inevitably reveal themselves as emanating, originally, from "a Supreme Governor, a Judge, holy, just, powerful, all-seeing, retributive". If, however, we accept Newman's view as universally true, we cannot easily admit that, as is generally asserted and believed, many men obey conscience and love righteousness who nevertheless, do not believe in a personal, moral ruler of the universe. Why may not the most uncomprimising theist admit that the moral guide which the Creator has implanted in our nature is powerful enough successfully to discharge its function at least in occasional cases, without fully unfolding its implications? One of the leading Unitarian moralists has eloquently expressed this opinion.

The profound sense of the authority and even sacredness of the moral law is often conspicuous among men whose thoughts apparently never turn to superhuman things, but who are penetrated by a secret worship of honour, truth and right. Were this noble state of mind brought out of its impulsive state and made to unfold its implicit contents, it would indeed reveal a source higher than human nature for the august authority of righteousness. But it is undeniable that that authority may be felt where it is not seen--felt as if it were the mandate of a Perfect Will, while yet there is no overt recognition of such a Will: i.e., conscience may act as human, before it is discovered to be divine. To the agent himself its whole history may seem to lie in his own personality and his visible social relations; and it shall nevertheless serve as his oracle, though it be hid from him Who it is that utters it. (Martineau, A Study of Religion, Introduc., p. 21.)

Nevertheless it must be admitted that such persons are comparatively few; and they, too, testify to the implication of another self in the intimations of consciousness; for they, as Ladd says

personify the conception of the sum-total of ethical obligations, they are fain to spell the words with capitals and swear allegiance to this purely abstract conception. They hypostatize and deify an abstraction as though it were itself existent and divine. (Ladd, Philosophy of Conduct, p. 385.)

The doctrine that conscience is autonomous, independent, sovereign, a law-giver deriving its authority from no higher source, will neither, logically speaking, satisfy the idea of duty, nor sufficiently safeguard morality. One cannot, after all, owe a debt to himself, he cannot lay a command on himself. If moral judgments can claim no higher origin than one's own reason, then under close, severe inspection they must be considered as merely preferential. The portentous magisterial tone in which conscience speaks is a mere delusion; it can show no warrant or title to the authority which it pretends to exercise when, under stress of temptation, a man who believes in no higher legislator than conscience, finds arising in his mind the inevitable question, Why am I bound to obey my conscience when my desires run in another direction? he is perilously tempted to adjust his moral code to his inclinations; and the device of spelling duty with a capital will prove but a slender support to it against the attack of passion.

Reason solves the problem of duty, and vindicates the sanctity of the law of righteousness by tracing them to their source in God. As the cosmic order is a product and expression of the Divine Will so, likewise, the moral law which is expressed on the rational nature. God wills that we shape our free action or conduct to that norm. Reason recognizing our dependence on the Creator, and acknowledging His ineffable majesty, power, goodness, and sanctity, teaches us that we owe Him love, reverence, obedience, service, and, consequently, we owe it to Him to observe that law which He has implanted within us as the ideal of conduct. This is our first and all-comprehensive duty in which all other duties have their root. In the light of this truth conscience explains itself, and is transfigured. It is the accredited representative of the Eternal; He is the original Imponent of moral obligation; and disobedience to conscience is disobedience to Him. Infraction of the moral law is not merely a violence done to our rational nature; it is also an offence to God, and this aspect of its malice is designated by calling it sin. The sanctions of conscience, self-approbation, and self-reproach, are reinforced by the supreme sanction, which, if one may use the expression, acts automatically. It consists in this, that by obedience to the law we reach our perfection, and compass our supreme good; while, on the other hand the transgressor condemns himself to miss that good in the attainment of which alone lies the happiness that is incorruptible. To obviate a possible misapprehension it may be remarked here that the distinction between right and wrong hangs not upon any arbitrary decree of the Divine Will. Right is right and wrong is wrong because the prototype of the created order, of which the moral law forms a part, is the Divine Nature itself the ultimate ground of of all truth intellectual and and moral.

ERRONEOUS ETHICS

We have already touched upon the main weakness of the Kantian theory, which is to treat conscience as autonomous. Another mistake of Kant is that in his system duty and right are made coterminous. A moment's reflection is sufficient to perceive that this is an error. There are many conceivable good actions which one can do, and which it would be highly praiseworthy to perform, yet which no reasonable person, however rigorous his ideal of conduct might be would say one is bound to perform. Duty and right are two concentric circles. The inner one, duty, embraces all that is to be observed under penalty of failing to live rationally. The outer contains the inner, but, stretching far beyond, permits an indefinite extension to the paths of virtue that lead to consummate righteousness and sanctity. Every philosophic system which embraces as one of its tenets the doctrine of determinism thereby commits itself to the denial of the existence of moral obligation. Duty implies that the subject of it possesses the power to observe the law, or to disobey, and the power to choose between these alternatives what reproach can a determinist mentor logically address to one who has committed a wrong action? "You ought not to have done so"? The culprit can reply: "But you have taught me that free will is a delusion; that no one can act otherwise than he does. So, under the circumstances in which I found myself, it was impossible for me to refrain from the notion which you condemn. What, then, can you mean by saying that I ought not to have meted as I did? You reproach me; as well reproach a tiger for having eaten his man or a volcano for having ruined a village."

With regard to the existence of duty every form of pantheism, or monism, logically finds itself in the camp of determinism. When man is looked upon as one with the Infinite his actions are not really his own, but belong properly to the Universal Being. The part assigned to him in his activities, is similar to that played by a carbon burner in relation to the electric current generated by a dynamo. The Divine power passing through him clothes itself with only a seeming individuality, while the whole course of action, the direction which it takes, and the results in which it culminates, belong to the Supreme Being. If this were true, then lying, debauchery, theft, murder were equally as worthy as truthfulness chastity, honesty, benevolence; for all would be equally manifestations of the one universal Divinity. Then a classification of conduct into two opposite categories might still be made from the standpoint of results; but the idea of moral worth, which is the very core of the moral life and the first postulate of duty, would have vanished. Hedonism of every shade--epicurean, utilitarian, egoistic, altruistic, evolutionary--which builds on one or another form of the "greatest happiness" principle and makes pleasure and pain in discriminating norm of right and wrong, is unable to vindicate any authority for duty, or even to acknowledge the existence of moral obligation. No combination of impulses, if they are estimated from the merely biological or purely empirical standpoint, can, by any juggling of words, be converted into a moral hierarchy. The hedonist is doomed to find all his endeavour to establish the basis of the moral order terminate in "is", but never in "ought", in a fact, but never in an ideal. Lecky has neatly summed up the hedonist solution of the problem of duty: "All that is meant by saying we ought to do an action is that if we do not do it we shall suffer."

Pleasure, say the epicurean and the egoist, is the only motive of action; and actions are good or bad accordingly as they produce a surplus of pleasure over the pain, or contribute to or diminish welfare. Then, we ask, must I always pursue what seems to me the most pleasurable or the most remunerative? If the answer is yes, we are again landed in determinism. If the reply is that I can choose, but that I ought to choose what produces the most happiness, then I ask, why ought I to choose the course which produces most happiness or pleasure if I prefer to do otherwise? To this question the epicurean and the egoist have no answer. Besides, the most pleasurable conduct may be one that all reasonable men condemn as wrong, because it is injurious to some one else. Here the egoist is compelled to hand the difficulty over to the altruist. The latter endeavours to dispose of it by pointing out that the object of good conduct is not merely the agent's own happiness, but that of everybody concerned. But again, why am I bound to take into account the welfare of others? and the altruist is silent. The evolutionist of the Spencerian type intervenes with a ponderous theory that in gauging the measure in which actions produce welfare or diminish it not merely the immediate, but also and more especially, the remote results must be considered. He then proceeds to show that, as an hereditary consequence of our ancestors' experience that remote results are more important than immediate, we have come to fancy that remote results have a certain authoritativeness. Also, from unpleasant experiences of our ancestors, we inherit a tendency, when thinking of injurious actions, to think too of the external penalties which were attached to such actions. These two elements blending into one, give rise, we are told, to the feeling of moral obligation. So the common conviction that moral obligation has really any binding authority is a mere delusion. Spencer is honest enough to draw the inevitable corollary of the doctrine which is that our sense of duty and moral obligation is transitory and defined to disappear. Ethical writers of the "independent morality" schools have devised a beautifully simple way of escaping from the embarrassment of accounting for the validity of moral obligation. They ignore the subject altogether and refer the disappointed inquirer to the metaphysician. Ethics, they blandly declare, is a descriptive, not a normative science; hence that imposing array of works professing to treat scientifically of morals, yet calmly ignoring the pivotal factor of the moral life.

HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA OF DUTY

To trace the development of the concept of duty would be to review the history of the human race. Even in the lowest races there is to be found some moral code, however, crude and erroneous. Another universal fact is that the race has, everywhere and always, placed morals under a religious or quasi-religious, sanction. The savage, in a measure corresponding to his crude moral and intellectual development, witnesses to this universal impulse by observing inumerable customs because he believes them to have some sanction higher than that of his fellow tribesmen or their chief. The great nations of antiquity, Chinese, Chaldean, Babylonlan, Egyptian, saw in their deities the source or sanction of their moral codes--at least until the religious and the moral ideal became simultaneously corrupted. In Greece and Rome, likewise religion and morals were intimately associated, until religion proved false to its trust. The same phenomenon is found in the Aryan race of India and Persia, while the Semitic peoples, especially the Jews, always continued to look to religion for the reason of their moral codes. When classic pagannism had introduced among the gods the vices of men, the ancient tradition continued to be vindicated by the poets, and by some of the philosophers. The magnificent testimonies of the Greek tragic poets, of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero to the superhuman origin of the moral law and duty need not be quoted here. But when religious tradition lost its force and philosophy became the guardian of morality a conflict of rival schools, none ot which possessed sufficient authority to make its tenets prevail with the mass of the people, was the inevitable result; and as religious faith declined, the tendency to find a non-religious basis for duty became more pronounced. The consequence was that the idea of duty faded, and systems arose, which, like our present day "independent morality", had no place for moral obligation.

The unity of the moral and religious ideal was restored and rendered perfect by Christianity. The Gospel vindicated the the Divine origin of duty, and declared that its fulfilment constituted the very essence of religion. This idea has been the chief motor force to raise the Western world out of the moral chaos into which denying paganism had dragged it. The doctrine that every man is an immortal being created by God to be united with Himself in an endless existence, provided that he observe the law of righteousness, in which God's will is expressed, sets forth the dignity of man and the sacredness of duty in their full nobility. The wickedness of moral delinquency reveals itself in this, that it is a sin against the Most High--an idea scarcely known to antiquity outside the Hebrew people. The Christian religion brought out more clearly and taught with the authority of God, the code of the natural law, much of which unaided reason developed only in hesitating accents and without the anthority necessary to impose it effectively as obligatory on all. The Christian was taught that the fulfilment of duty is the one supreme concern of life to which all other interests must be made to bow and that its fulfilment is enforced by the most trementrous sanctions conceivable. The Gospel gave a satisfactory solution to the anomaly which had perplexed philosophers and misled them to erroneous doctrines concerning the meaning of the moral life. How can virtue be man's perfection, good, and end, when the fulfilment of duty means in many cases, the frustration of many natural desires and wants? The history of duty, replies the Christian, lies not all within the confines of earthly life; its ultimate goal is beyond the grave. The Christian doctrine of the Fatherhood of God and the sonship of man leads to a clearer perception of the chief duties and of their importance. Human life is seen to be a sacred, inviolable thing in ourselves and in others; woman the equal, not the slave of man; the family is ordained of God, and its cornerstone is monogamous marriage. The State, too, is placed on a firmer basis, since Christian doctrine teaches that it draws the warrant of its existence not from force, or a more consensus of human wills, but from God. Finally, the Christian law of love correlates the outer circle of righteousness with the inner one of strict duty. Love of God becomes the adequate motive for striving after the highest personal sanctity; love of our neighbour for the widest exercise of benevolence far beyond the limits of strict duty. In the person of the Master, Christianity offers to us the lawless Exemplar of the moral ideal, the perfect conformity of will and action to the Divine Will. His example has proved potent enough to inspire with heroic loyalty to duty "the millions who countless and nameless, the stern hard path have trod". The moral standards of our civilization have been developed and maintained by the efficiency of the Christian idea of duty. Contemporary conditions furnish unmistakable indications that these standard become debased and discredited when they are torn from the ground whence they sprang.

DUTIES

The obligation of living according to our rational nature is the parent of all particular duties. These are generally divided into three groups: (1) duties to God, (2) duties towards ourselves, and (3) duties to others.

(1) To God, the Supreme Master of the universe, our Creator, the All Holy, All Good, we owe honour, service, obedience, and love. These duties are comprehended under the general term religion. Since He is Truth itself, we owe it to Him to believe whatever He has revealed to us in a supernatural manner; to worship Him in the way which in revelation, He has taught us is most pleasing to Him; and to obey the authority which He has constituted (see CHURCH). Reverence due to Him forbids all profanity and blasphemy of Him or whatever is sacred to Him. Lying is an offence against His Divine nature, which is Truth itself. These generic duties cover all the specific duties that we owe to God, and embrace, besides, those duties which devolve upon us as members of the Catholic Church.

(2) Our duties towards ourselves may all be included under one principle: life, the goods of person, mental and physical, have been given to us in trust, with the obligation of using them to obtain our supreme good and end. Hence we may not destroy them, or abuse them as if we were independent master of them. Therefore suicide, abuse of our faculties, mental or physical, exposing our life or health to danger without a reasonable motive, are prohibited; as also are all actions incompatible with the reverence that we owe to our moral nature. We are bound to strive for the development of our intellect and for temporal goods as far as these are necessary to the fulfilment of the moral law. As duty is a debt to some one other than ourselves, we cannot, strictly speaking, use the term duties to ourselves. They are due to God; they regard ourselves.

(3) All our duties towards others are implicitly contained in Christian precept: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". God wills the welfare of all men; hence the obligation of making His will the rule of mine binds me to will their welfare, and to order my conduct towards them with a due respect to the rational nature which they possess, and to the obligations which that nature imposes on them. The application of this principle gives birth to duties towards the minds and wills of others (prohibition of scandal and lying); to the lives of others (prohibition of murder, etc.); to their good reputation (prohibition of insult, detraction, or defamation of character).

As material goods are necessary to us in order to live according to the rational law, evidently God in imposing moral obligation wills also that we have at our disposal the means necessary to fulfil our duty. Hence arises that moral control over things which called a fight. The needs of a moral life requite that some things should be permanently under our control; hence the rights of ownership. Now a right in one person is nugatory unless others are bound to respect it. So to every right there is a corresponding duty.

Thus far we have sketched the line of duty incumbent on each one towards others as individuals. Besides these there are social duties. The primary society, the family, which is the unit of civil society, has its foundation in our nature; and the relations which constitute it give rise to two groups of rights and correlative duties--conjugal and parental. Besides the family, a wider, broader, association of man with his fellows is needed, generally speaking, in order that he may develop his life with all its needs and potencies, in accordance with the dictates of reason. God has intended man to live in civil society, and man becomes the subject of duties and rights with regard to the society of which he is a member. The society, too, acquires a moral unity or personality which is also the by the society to impose laws which constitute a binding obligation. This right, called authority, is derived from the natural law, ultimately from God. For, since He wills civil society as a means for the due development of human nature, He wills that authority without which it cannot exist. As the lower and animals cannot be the subject of rights we do not owe them any duties; but we owe duties to God in their regard. (see ETHICS; LAW; OBLIGATIONS).

JAMES J. FOX

Duvergier de Hauranne

(Or Du Verger), Jean; also called Saint­ Cyran from an abbey he held in commendam).

One of the authors of Jansenism, b. at Bayonne, France, 1581; d. in Paris, 1643. After studying the humanities in his native place, and philosophy at the Sorbonne, he went to Louvain, not to the university but to the Jesuit college, where he graduated, 1604, with a brilliant thesis admired by Justus Lipsius. His acquaintance with the future theologian of the Jansenist sect, Cornelius Jansen (Jansenius), a young disciple of the Baianist Jacques Janson, probably began at Louvain. In 1605 the two were in Paris, attending together the lessons of the Gallican, Edmond Richer, and studying Christian antiquity with a view to restoring it to its place of honour, usurped, as they claimed, by Scholasticism. These studies of patristic and especially Augustinian literature were pursued with incredible energy for wellnigh twelve years, at Paris, till 1611, and then at Campiprat (Cantipré), the home of Hauranne, under the protection of Bertrand d'Eschaux, Bishop of Bayonne, who made Duvergier canon of his cathedral, and Jansen principal of a newly-founded college. Owing, no doubt, to the translation of d'Eschaux from Bayonne to Tours, the two friends left Bayonne in 1617, Jansen returning to Louvain and Duvergier going to Poitiers where Bishop de la Rocheposay, a disciple of Scaliger and an enthusiastic humanist, received him as a friend, appointed him to a canonry and the priory of Bonneville, and later, 1620, resigned in his behalf the Abbey of Saint-Cyran-en-Brenne. The new commendatory prelate resided little in his abbey. In 1622 he returned definitively to Paris, the metropolis affording him better opportunities to further his plans. During the years 1617-1635 an assiduous correspondence was kept up between Duvergier and Jansen, of which there remain only "Lettres de Jansénius à Duverger de Hauranne", seized at the time of Saint-Cyran's incarceration. These letters, wherein conventional ciphers are frequently used, constantly mention the affaire principale, projet, cabale, that is, first and foremost, the composition of the "Augustinus" by Jansen, Saint-Cyran employing himself to enlist patrons for the so-called Augustinian system (see Jansenism ).

For greater security the two innovators occasionally met to discuss the progress of their joint work. One of these meetings probably gave rise to the much-debated Projet de Bourg-Fontaine. In his "Relation juridique de ce qui s'est passé à Poitiers touchant la nouvelle doctrine des Jansénistes" (Poitiers, 1654), Filleau stated on the authority of one of the conspirators then repentant, that six persons had secretly met in 1621 at the chartreuse of Bourg-Fontaine, near Paris, for the purpose of overthrowing Christianity and establishing deism in its stead. The names of the conspirators, only initialled by Filleau, were given in full by Bayle (Dict., s. v. "Arnauld"); that of Saint­Cyran heads the list. The Jansenists always protested against this story. Arnauld called it a "diabolical invention", and Pascal ridiculed it in his "Seizième lettre à un provincial". The Jesuit Father Souvage's argument in his "Réalité du projet de Bourg-Fontaine démontrée par l'exécution" (Paris, 1755) was refuted by D. Clémencet in "La verité et l'innocence victorieuses de la calomnie ou huit lettres sur le projet de Bourg-Fountaine" (Paris, 1758). Although Clémencet's book was burned by order of the Parliament of Paris, still it never was answered. Guizot's remark that "the adepts of Jansenism passed insensibly from the tenets of Saint-Cyran and Montgeron to atheism and the worship of reason" (Civilisation en Europe, Lec. xii) may apply to some of the later Jansenists, but the charge of rationalism is obviously untenable when brought against the Jansenists of the first generation. Stripped of unsupported details and deductions, Filleau's narrative and Sauvage's arguments show, what is borne out by the letters of Jansenius and other documents of the time, a covert yet definite purpose, as early as 1621, to deeply modify the dogmas, moral practices, and constitution of the Church, St. Augustine being made responsible for such changes.

As noticed above, Duvergier's share was to win high influence in favour of the religious revolution. While at Poitiers he had met Richelieu, de Condren, and Arnauld d'Andilly. At Paris he sought out such men as Vincent de Paul, founder of the Congregation of the Mission; Olier, founder of Saint-Sulpice; Bérulle, superior of the French Oratory; Tarisse, superior of Saint-Nicholas, and many more. It cannot be denied that these men were at first attracted by Saint-Cyran's affected asceticism, but when they understood his true aim they recoiled from him. The terse expression applied in the Roman Breviary to St. Vincent de Paul, Sensit simul et exhorruit (he shuddered on hearing), could be said of them all, with the exception of Bérulle and Arnauld d'Andilly. Bérulle never shared the errors of Duvergier and Jansen, but, being indebted to these two for the establishment of the French Oratory in the Netherlands, he failed to detect their real purpose and gave them a hold on his order which they never released. Owing to his Gallicanism and strong prejudices against the Jesuits, Arnauld d'Andilly fell an easy prey to Saint-Cyran's wiles and declamations, and even brought with him the whole Arnauld family, along with the Bernardine nuns of Port-Royal (q. v.). Adroitly and persistently Saint-Cyran pushed his way into this celebrated monastery, till, in 1636, he became its sole director. Not only were his innovations and rigorism eagerly accepted by the nuns, but Port-Royal became the centre of Jansenism, drawing a host of ecclesiastics, lawyers, writers, etc., all vying with one another to place themselves under the "spiritual domination" of the Abbé de Saint-Cyran. His incredible success and nefarious work are well described by M. Sépet (in Rev. des quest. hist., xlv, 534): "Taking advantage of the moral enthusiasm aroused by the religious awakening, an ardent and sombre sectarian, Saint-Cyran undertook to win souls over for the proud doctrine of absolute predestination to either salvation or damnation, also to an excessive rigorism to which the initiated easily accommodated themselves, while simple-hearted folk like Pascal risked life and reason in its practice."

Saint-Cyran was at the summit of his influence when an order of Richelieu sent him (1638) to the donjon of Vincennes. His incarceration has been variously explained both by friends and enemies. Richelieu gave the true reason when he said: "Saint-Cyran is more dangerous than six armies. … If Luther and Calvin had been arrrested when they began to dogmatize, much trouble would have been spared the nations." (See Marandé, "Inconvénients d'etat procédant du Jansénisme", Paris, 1653.) Jansenist writers unduly insist on the rigour of Saint-Cyran's captivity. As a matter of fact, he was given liberty enough to receive his friends, to read the first printed copy of "Augustinus", to collaborate with Antoine Arnauld on the "Fréquente Communion", published in 1643, to write his "Théologie familière" and the voluminous "Lettres chrétiennes et spirituelles", and even to make new recruits. In 1643, after Richelieu's death, Saint-Cyran recovered his liberty and returned in triumph to Port-Royal. The triumph, however, was clouded by the announcement that the "Augustinus" had been condemned at Rome. When the author heard of the condemnation he angrily protested that "Rome was going too far and ought to be taught a lesson"; a stroke of apoplexy, however, carried him off before he could execute his threat. Pierre de Pons, parish priest of Saint-Jacques du Haut-Pas, in a note quoted by Rapin (Hist. du Jans., p. 305), testified that Saint-Cyran died while being anointed, but had asked for neither absolution nor Viaticum, notwithstanding a certificate to the contrary, delivered by Mulsey, when importuned and bribed by the Jansenists.

Saint-Cyran was a prolific writer. His manuscripts, seized at the time of his arrest, formed no less than thirty-two thick folios. Amid the numerous writings ascribed to him by the "Dictionnaire des livres Jansénistes" (Antwerp, 1755), it is difficult to distinguish his genuine works, for he generally wrote anonymously, or under a false name, or in collaboration with others. Apart from two frivolous pamphlets written by Duvergier in his youth, "Question royale" (Paris, 1609), an apology for suicide under certain circumstances, and "Apologie pour … de la Rocheposay" (Poitiers, 1615), a thesis intended to show that bishops have a right to use arms, his principal works are: (1) "Somme des fautes … du P. Garasse" (Paris, 1626), with several additional pamphlets in support of it; the book itself was a vile attack on the Jesuits on occasion of a somewhat incautious book written by one of them, the heroic Father Garasse; (2) "Petrus Aurelius de hierarchiâ ecclesiasticâ" (Paris, 1631), written in collaboration with Duvergier's nephew, Barcos, and others. This book purports to be a defence of Richard Smith, vicar Apostolic in England, against the alleged machinations of the English Jesuits; in fact it aims at winning over to the Jansenist error the Catholic hierarchy whose prerogatives it exaggerates to the detriment of the Roman See. The scientific portion of it is taken from the "De republicâ christianâ" (1617) of the apostate Marc’ Antonio de Dominis; the rest consists mainly of abuse of the Jesuits. By a singular inconsistency, Saint­Cyran bases the episcopal power not so much on the Sacrament of Orders as on the interior spirit. The Evêque intérieur, remarks Sainte-Beuve, is simply the Directeur, a name and office much coveted by Saint-Cyran. The clergy of France, taken by surprise, paid the expenses of the book but later ordered Sainte-Marthe's eulogy of Duvergier expunged from the "Gallia Christiana". (3) "Chapelet secret du très Saint-Sacrement" (Paris, 1632), a series of Quietist remarks on the attributes of Christ. This booklet, having become a kind of storm-centre, was prudently repudiated by Saint-Cyran who nevertheless wrote several tracts in its defence. (4) "Théologie familière" (Paris, 1642), a series of theologico-devotional tracts, the Jansenists' catechism, teeming with errors on nearly every subject, condemned by the Holy Office, 23 April, 1654. (5) "Lettres chrétiennes et spirituelles" (Paris, 1645); another series (Paris, 1744). Bossuet calls them dry and overwrought (spiritualité sèche et alambiquée). With the "Théologie familière" they exhibit a fair specimen of Saint-Cyran's galimatias and obscure asceticism. Saint-Cyran's writings were collected in his "Œuvres" (Lyons, 1679).

     Besides a mass of unreliable Jansenist memoirs, e.g. by Lancelot (Utrecht, 1738), Du FossÉ (Utrecht, 1739), Arnauld d' Andilly (Utrecht, 1751), etc., see Lettres de C. Jansénius á J. DuVerger de Hauranne, ed. Gerberon (Cologne, 1703); Saint-Cyran in Diction. des Jansénistes, ed. Migne (Paris, 1847); Rapin Hist. du Jansénisme (Paris, 1865); Idem, Mémoires (Paris, 1865); Sainte­ Beuve, Port- Royal (Paris, 1871), corrected by Fuzet, Les Jansénistes et leur dernier historien Sainte- Beuve (Paris, 1876); Jungmann, De Jansenismo in Dissert. selectæ in hist. eccl. (Bruges, 1886), VI, 217; Dalgairns, Introduction to Devotion oto the Sacred Heart (London, 1853); Kroll, Causes of the Jansenist Heresy in Am. Cath. Quart. Rev., 1885; Mathieu, Jansénius et Saint­Cyran in Pages d'histoire: Renaissance et Réforme (Paris, 1905); Maynard, Vie de Saint Vincent de Paul; Faillon, Vie de M. Olier. For a lengthy bibliography see BrunietiÈre, Hist. de la litt. française (Paris, 1899).

J.F. Sollier

Ludger Duvernay

A French-Canadian journalist and patriot, born at Verchères, Quebec, 22 January, 1799; died 28 November, 1852. A printer by trade, he founded ad edited successively at Three Rivers, Quebec, "La Gazette des Trois-Rivières": (1817), "Le Constitutionnel" (1823), and "L'Argus" (1826). In 1827, with A. N. Morin, he founded in Montreal "La Minerve", one of the prominent papers of French Canada. He was imprisoned (1832) for protesting with Dr. Daniel Tracey, editor of the "Vindicator", against the arbitrariness of the Legislative Council. A medal was presented him in acknowledgment of his devotedness to the public good. Duvernay's chief title to fame is the foundation of the Society of St. John the Baptist (1834). The choice of the Precursor for the patron saint of the French-Canadians accorded with a time-honored tradition mentioned in the Jesuit "Relations" (1646) as contemporary with the beginning of New France and inherited from the mother country. The maple leaf, now accepted by Canadians of every origin, was chosen as the national emblem and the motto adopted by Duvernay was "Notre langue, nos institutions et nos lois". Elected for Lachenaie in 1837, he was forced to leave the country for participating in the Canadian Rebellions, and he took up his residence at Burlington, Vermont, where he founded "Le Patriote Canadien" (1849). The union of the two Canadas having been voted by the British Parliament and the principle of representative government adopted, peace was restored and political exiles were allowed to return. Duvernay began again the publication of "La Minerve", in which he extolled the introduction of responsible government, and criticized the Act of Union destined, by its authors, to absorb Lower Canada.

LIONEL LINDSAY

Antoon (Anthonis) Van Dyck

Usually known as Sir Anthony Van Dyck.

Flemish portrait-painter, b. at Antwerp, 22 March, 1599; d. in London, 9 December, 1641. This great painter was the seventh child of a family of twelve, being the son of Frans Van Dyck, merchant in silk, linen, and kindred materials, and of Maria, daughter of Dirk Cuypers and Catherina Conincx. While still a boy he was placed, on the advice of Jan Brueghel, as a pupil in the studio of Hendrick Van Balen, who had been a pupil of Rubens. The young artist's development as a painter was rapid, for it is recorded that at the age of fourteen he painted a portrait of an old man, and a lawsuit in 1660 revealed the fact that he had also produced when quite a youth a series of heads exceedingly well painted. A proof of his skill is the fact that in 1618, before he was twenty, he was admitted to the freedom of the guild of St. Luke in Antwerp, an unusual distinction for a youthful painter. The tradition that Van Dyck was apprenticed to Rubens or was ever his pupil must be dismissed. Investigations have proved that he was regarded as a master in his art when he was introduced to the studio of Rubens. Here Van Dyck made one of the group of young men who assisted the master in his decorative works, which it would have been quite impossible for him to complete by himself.

In 1620, at the request of the Countess of Arundel, Van Dyck appears to have come to England and to have received commissions from James I for which he was paid in February, 1621. After executing these orders he returned to Antwerp and then determined to visit Italy, leaving in October, 1621, and remaining abroad for five years. He spent some time at Genoa, moved on to Rome, and then visited Florence; from here he went to Bologna, and later by way of Mantua to Venice. After this he was at Milan and finally in 1623 in Rome. The records of this journey remain in the famous "Chatsworth Sketch Book". His life in Rome was unsatisfactory, for he made many enemies, and soon left the Eternal City and settled in Genoa, where he was exceedingly popular. His portraits of the great nobility of Genoa rank among the finest in the world and form a magnificent and unrivalled series. In 1624 he visited Palermo, painting the portrait of Emmanuel of Savoy, Viceroy of Sicily, and some church pictures, but returned to Genoa and in 1626 left for Antwerp, probably on account of some complications with regard to the division of his father's estate. He visited Aachen and is believed to have gone on to Paris, while tradition states that he made a second visit to England. However, nothing definite is known of his movements until 1630 when he was at The Hague, and shortly afterwards back in his native town. Another tradition, which speaks of the rivalry between Rubens and Van Dyck, has to be discredited. Mr. Lionel Cust and others have shown that the two painters were not only on terms of equality with regard to their art, but that a generous and cordial friendship existed between them.

In 1632 Van Dyck went again to England and was graciously received by Charles I. He appears to have passed into the king's service immediately, as a warrant was issued on 21 May, 1632, for the payment of an allowance to him, and a residence given him in Blackfriars. He had also a summer residence in the palace of Eltham, was knighted on 5 July, presented with a chain and medal of great value, and granted a pension of £200 a year to be paid quarterly. From the moment of his arrival commenced his great success as a portrait painter in England. The king and queen sat to him frequently, and he was overwhelmed with commissions. In 1634-5 he received a pressing invitation to visit the court at Brussels and accepted it, but in 1635 he was back at Antwerp and in the same year returned to England, taking again his position as portrait-painter to Charles I and to Henrietta Maria. Of the king he painted no less than thirty-six portraits and about twenty-five of Queen Henrietta Maria, but perhaps the most beautiful works executed for the royal family were those in which he depicted the children of the royal pair. To this period belong the wonderful portraits of members of the English aristocracy to be found in so many of the great English houses. He prepared a scheme for decorating the walls of the banqueting-house at Whitehall, the sketches for which still exist, but the royal exchequer could not afford the work. In 1640 he decided to return to Antwerp. Rubens had died and Van Dyck was acknowledged the head of the Flemish School and entertained with great magnificence. He was disposed to settle permanently at Antwerp, but first went to Paris, desiring to obtain the commission to decorate the gallery of the Louvre. The work was, however, given to French artists and Van Dyck returned to London for a while, later on in the year, however, visiting Antwerp and Paris, and then coming back to London. When he arrived his health was in a critical condition, and despite the attention of the royal physician he died at his house in Blackfriars eight days after his wife had given birth to a daughter. He was buried in St. Paul's Cathedral, and a monument was erected to his memory by order of the king, but the grave and monument perished with the cathedral in the great fire of 1666.

In portraiture Van Dyck is the greatest artist of Europe after Titian, and in works of decorative splendour perhaps only rivalled by Rubens. He was a man of luxurious and somewhat indolent habits, ambitious, proud, sensitive, and quick to take offence. In his portraits the elegance of the composition, the delicate expression of the heads, the truth and purity of his colouring, and the strong lifelike quality of expression give him the very highest position, and he is one of the few painters whom all critics have placed in the front rank. In a consideration of his art the brilliant and vigorous etchings must not be overlooked.

CUST, Anthony Van Dyck (London, 1900); IDEM, The Chatsworth Sketch-Book (London, 1902); IDEM, Van Dyck (London, 1903); DUPLESSIS, Eaux-fortes de Van Dyck (Paris, 1874); MICHIELS, Van Dyck et ses élèves (Paris, 1881); GUIFFREY, Antoine Van Dyck (Paris, 1882); LEMCKE, Anton Van Dyck (Leipzig, 1875); MUTHER, Modern Painting (London, 1905); MÜNTZ, Histoire de la peinture (Paris, 1881).

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Robert Dymoke

Confessor of the Faith, date of birth uncertain; d. at Lincoln, England, 11 Sept., 1580. He was the son of Sir Edward Dymoke (d. 1566) of Scrivelsby, Lincolnshire, hereditary King's Champion. In 1579 Dymoke received the martyr-priest, blessed Richard Kirkman, at Scrivelsby, and maintained him as schoolmaster to his sons. He was himself, at the time, an occasional conformist to the State-religion but was reconciled in 1580 either by Kirkman or by blessed Edmund Campion. In July, 1580, Dymoke and his wife, the Lady Bridget, eldest daughter and coheiress of Edward Clinton, Earl of Lincoln, were indicted for hearing Mass and for recusancy. Though he was quite helpless owing to paralysis, Dymoke was ordered by Bishop Cooper of Lincoln to be carried off to gaol, where he died, faithful to the end. He was much tormented in his last hours by the Protestant ministers who endeavoured to pervert him, and who, even when the dying man was half-unconscious, refused to leave him in peace. He left several children, his eldest son, Edward, being more than twenty-one years of age at the time of his father's death.

BEDE CAMM.

St. Dymphna

(Also known as Dympna and Dimpna).

Virgin and martyr. The earliest historical account of the veneration of St. Dymphna dates from the middle of the thirteenth century. Under Bishop Guy I of Cambrai (1238-47), Pierre, a canon of the church. of Saint Aubert at Cambrai, wrote a "Vita" of the saint, from which we learn that she had been venerated for many years in a church at Gheel (province of Antwerp, Belgium), which was devoted to her. The author expressly states that he has drawn his biography from oral tradition. According to the narrative Dymphna, the daughter of a pagan king of Ireland, became a Christian and was secretly baptized. After the death of her mother, who was of extraordinary beauty, her father desired to marry his own daughter, who was just as beautiful, but she fled with the priest Gerebernus and landed at Antwerp. Thence they went tot the village of Gheel, where there was a chapel of St. Martin, beside which they took up their abode. The messengers of her father however, discovered their whereabouts; the father betook himself thither and renewed his offer. Seeing that all was in vain, he commanded his servants to slay the priest, while he himself struck off the head of his daughter. The corpses were put in sacrophagi and entombed in a cave where they were found later. The body of St. Dymphna was buried in the church of Gheel, and the bones of St. Gerebernus were transferred to Kanten. This narrative is without any historical foundation, being merely avariation of the story of the king who wanted to marry his own daughter, a motif which appears frequently in popular legends. Hence we can conclude nothing from it as to the history of St. Dymphna and the time in which she lived. That she is identical with St. Damhnat of Ireland cannot be proved. There are at Gheel fragments of two simple ancient sarcophagi in which tradition says the bodies of Dymphna and Gerebernus were found. There is also a quadrangular brick, said to have been found in one of the sarcophagi, bearing two lines of letters read as DYMPNA. The discovery of this sarcophagus with the corpse and the brick was perhaps the origin of the veneration. In Christian art St. Dymphna is depicted with a sword in her hand and a fettered devil at her feet. Her feast is celebrated 15 May, under which date she is also found in the Roman martyrology.

From time immemorial, the saint was invoked as patroness against insanity. The Bollandists have published numerous accounts of miraculous cures, especially between 1604 and 1668. As a result, there has long been a colony for lunatics at Gheel; even now there are sometimes as many as fifteen hundred whose relatives invoke St. Dymphna for their cure. The insane are treated in a peculiar manner; it is only in the beginning that they are placed in an institution for observation; later they are given shelter in the homes of the inhabitants, take part in their agricultural labours, and are treated very kindly. They are watched without being conscious of it. The treatment produces good results. The old church of St. Dymphna in Gheel was destroyed by fire in 1489. The new church was consecrated in 1532 and is still standing. Every year on the feast of the saint and on the Tuesday after Pentecost numerous pilgrims visit her shrine. In Gheel there is also a fraternity under her name.

J.P. KIRSCH

Dynamism

Dynamism is a general name for a group of philosophical views concerning the nature of matter. However different they may be in other respects, all these views agree in making matter consist essentially of simple and indivisible units, substances, or forces. Dynamism is sometimes used to denote systems that admit not only matter and extension, but also determinations, tendencies, and forces intrinsic and essential to matter. More properly, however, it means exclusive systems that do away with the dualism of matter and force by reducing the former to the latter. Here we shall limit ourselves to this strict form of dynamism, first, indicating its chief advocates and its characteristic presentations, secondly, comparing these in order to see the points of agreement and of difference.

I. We have but a vague and incomplete knowledge of the doctrines held by the Pythagorean School, but it seems that they may rightly be considered as at least the forerunners of modem dynamism. From Aristotle's "Metaphysics" we gather that the Pythagoreans, imbued with a mathematical spirit and accustomed to mathematical methods, came to look upon the principles (archai) of numbers as the principles of things themselves, to assert that the elements (stoicheia) of numbers were also the elements of reality, and that the whole heaven was a harmony and a number. Various geometrical figures are but different combinations of numbers, the unit being a point; from points are formed lines, from lines, surfaces, and from surfaces, solids; and geometrical figures are the very substance of things. Hence, finally, "physical bodies are composed of numbers". Among the Arabian philosophers, the Mutacallimûn were atomists. The atom is the only substance and all atoms are perfectly identical in nature. The identity, however, is not of a positive, but of a merely negative character, for these primitive elements of matter are simple substances and nothing else. They have no determinations whatever, no weight, no shape, no quantity, no extension. The atom is an indivisible and simple substantial point, the necessary subject of all accidents or determinations, and incapable of existing without them.

Leibniz's doctrine is a reaction against both the material mechanicism of Descartes and the substantial monism of Spinoza. The essence of matter cannot be extension. The laws of mechanics cannot themselves be understood without using the notion of force. Moreover, "a substance is a being capable of action", and "what does not act does not deserve the name of substance". Hence substance implies unity and individuality, and the real substance cannot be the "mate" atom (atome de matière). Having extension, such an atom is composed of parts and divisible without limit; it has no real unity. The elements which compose material substances are "formal" or "substantial" atoms (atomes de substance), simple and without parts. They are called monads. Bodies are "multitudes" and "aggregates", and the simple substances are units and elements. As they have no parts, monads have "neither extension, nor shape, nor possible divisibility. They are the true atoms of nature, and, in a word, the elements of things." Since it is impossible for two beings to be perfectly alike, every monad is different from every other. Monads have no external, but only an internal, activity, which is twofold: perception and appetition. All monads are, in various degrees, representations of the whole universe, but this representation or perception becomes clearly conscious (apperception), and is accompanied with attention, memory, and reflection, only in higher monads. Appetition is the activity of the internal principle by which the passage from one perception to another is effected. The relative perfection of the monads depends on the degree of clearness of their perceptions. Some unite to form an organism whose centre of unity is a higher monad or soul. This system is completed by the supposition of a pre-established harmony. The order and harmony of the world are the result not of an interaction between monads, but of a pre-arranged plan of the Creator who has endowed them with their power of internal evolution. In the main, Christian Wolff reproduced and systematized Leibniz's theory.

According to Boscovich (q. v.) "the first elements of matter are points absolutely indivisible and without any extension. They are spread throughout an immense vacuum in such a way as to be always at some distance from one another. The distance may increase or decrease indefinitely, but can never disappear completely without a compenetration of the points themselves, for contact between them is impossible" (Theoria Philosophiæ Naturals, no. 7). Hence there can be no continuous extension. The elements are all homogeneous, and, by their numbers, distances, arrangements, activities, and relations produce the diversity of material substances. They have no perception and no appetition. According to their distances, they have a determination to diminish or to increase the interval that separates them. This very determination Boscovich calls force, attractive in the former case, repulsive in the latter. The law of these forces is the following: if the distance between them is infinitesimal, they are repulsive, and the more so in proportion as the distance is smaller; if the distance, although remaining always very small, is increased a little, the repulsive force becomes first less intense, then null, and at a still larger distance is changed into an attractive force. This attraction again, with the increase of distance, goes on augmenting, then diminishing, till it becomes again null, and changes into a repulsion, which, in turn, by the same gradual process becomes attraction. Such changes may be repeated several times, but only while the distance, though increasing, remains infinitesimal. At greater distances the force is exclusively attractive. To explain the interaction of the points, Boscovich had to admit an actio in distans; yet he also admits the possibility of a Divinely pre-established harmony and even of occasionalism.

In his pre-critical period, Kant admitted physical monads, that is, simple and indivisible substances. His later views may be summed up as follows: matter is divisible without limit, but not actually divided into separate atoms. Matter is what fills up a space, and to fill up a space is to defend it against any mobile which should try to penetrate it. Hence matter is essentially resistance and force. It is not impenetrable, in the absolute or mathematical sense of the Cartesians, but in a relative sense and in varying degrees; it may be compressed and condensed. There are two distinct forces, repulsion and attraction. The former is the primary constituent of matter, since by it other things are excluded from the space it occupies. It produces extension, and, without it, matter would be reduced to a geometrical point. However, attraction is also essential to the occupancy of an assignable space, for otherwise matter would be scattered without limit. Repulsion can act only by contact; attraction may also act at a distance. From these two forces Kant derives all the properties of matter. It must be remembered that this theory is an explanation of the phenomenon only, the noumenon being inaccessible to our mind. This idealistic feature was carried still further by the German Transcendentalists; among them Schelling proposes a view the main lines of which agree with that of Kant. In more recent times, Herbart, Lotze, von Hartmann, Renouvier, to mention only a few names among many, also hold dynamic theories modified by their special points of view and philosophical systems. To these may be added some Catholic philosophers, e. g. the Sulpician Branchereau, and the Jesuits Carbonnelle and Palmieri. Among scientists, Ampère, Cauchy, Faraday, and others are also in favour of dynamism. Faraday's theory is substantially the same as that of Boscovich. That theory, namely, that "atoms . . . are mere centres of forces or powers, not particles of matter in which the powers themselves reside", has "a great advantage over the more usual notion". "A mind just entering on the subject may consider it difficult to think of the powers of matter independent of a separate something to be called the matter, but it is certainly far more difficult, and indeed impossible, to think of or imagine that matter independent of the powers. Now the powers we know and recognize in every phenomenon of the creation, the abstract matter in none; why, then, assume the existence of that of which we are ignorant, which we cannot conceive, and for which there is no philosophical necessity?" (A Speculation touching Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter, pp. 290, 291).

Today there is a tendency to substitute the concept of energy for that of force. Hence Professor Ostwald's "energetic theory". Matter is to be looked upon as a complex of energies arranged together in space. The concept of matter resolves itself into that of energy, since the manifestations of energy are all we know of the external world. Energy is the common substance, for it is that which exists in space and time; it is also the differentiating principle of whatever exists in space and time. Recent scientific discoveries, especially those in the field of radio-activity, seem to strengthen philosophical reason and lead to a more specific dynamism. The atom (q. v.) can no longer be considered as being what its name implies, namely indivisible. Atoms of different chemical elements are spheres of positive electrification enclosing a number of corpuscles, all homogeneous, having identical properties, and negatively electrified. Some physicists still attribute to these corpuscles a real, though infinitesimal, extension; they admit a nucleus or carrier of the electric charge, and this nucleus alone is what we call matter. But this is denied by others for whom the corpuscle contains nothing material in the sense in which we commonly use that term. It is all electricity and nothing but electricity. Indeed the only reason for admitting anything else would be the necessity of explaining the mass and inertia of the corpuscle. But electricity itself possesses mass and inertia; or rather the mechanical inertia of matter is identical with the self-induction of the electric current, and the mass results from the velocity of the current. It has been calculated that the whole mass and inertia of the corpuscle are accounted for by its electrical charge alone and its velocity. Hence the name "electron" given to the corpuscle; it is the ultimate unit of so-called matter. This is known as the electronic theory of matter.

II. The preceding outline shows that the term dynamism, like all other general names of philosophical systems, is very vague, and applies to a number of widely different views originating from different considerations and supported by different arguments, namely:

• Extension being essentially divisible, the ultimate unit must lack extension, otherwise it would be itself composed of parts, divisible and not one.
• Matter is essentially active; to reduce it to mere extension is to ignore one of its fundamental aspects.
• Even extension manifests itself exclusively through forces, and
• matter as such is unknowable and unthinkable.
• Scientific facts lead to an electronic theory.
• Matter is, therefore, to say the least, absolutely useless, and dynamism, being a simpler, yet adequate, explanation, is preferable.

Without entering into a discussion of the system, we may note briefly that the extension which is infinitely divisible is abstract, not concrete, mathematical, not physical, extension. For Aristotle and the Scholastics, physical matter is composed of two essential and inseparable principles, primary matter and substantial form (q. v.), the latter being the principle of unity and activity. Moreover, to admit the essential activity of matter does not necessarily imply that matter is nothing but activity. And if matter does not manifest itself to the senses except through forces and energies, it does not follow that it is not the necessary subject and carrier of these forces. In order to establish dynamism, it is not sufficient to overthrow materialism. If there is no matter, it is difficult to understand the forces themselves; for then, what is attracted? what moves, rotates, vibrates, etc.? Do not forces require a subject? It is clear that simple elements cannot give real extension. Can they even explain the phenomenon itself of extension, when not only physical bodies but the organism itself and the sense-organs are denied real extension? The facts and nature of radio-activity are not as yet sufficiently explored to furnish a safe basis for a definite theory of matter. Further, the necessity of admitting an actio in distans is also considered as an objection against some forms at least of dynamism.

Dynamism is opposed to the objective dualism of matter and energy, and also to mechanical materialism, according to which, matter, endowed with extension, is of itself an inert and indifferent vehicle of motion. It is not opposed to atomism in general, but only to some forms of it. Some dynamists, like Kant, admit the continuity of the forces constituting matter, but the majority admit centres or atoms of forces acting on one another. Atomism, therefore, is either material or dynamic, and dynamism may admit atomism or continuity. How far even dynamism is irreconcilable with hylomorphism (q. v.) in its most general meaning, it is difficult to determine. Leibniz speaks of primary matter and of substantial form, or entelechy. And the common elements of all things must be conceived as being only in potentiâ with regard to the actual diverse substances which they constitute. Again, the dynamic elements may be purely physical, or, as with Leibniz, they may have, in various degrees, a psychical nature, thus implying a sort of panpsychism. Leibniz also considers them as essentially different; commonly they are considered as identical in nature. Dynamism in general may be adapted to and modified by such philosophical systems as determinism or freedom, substantialism or phenomenalism, idealism or realism, monism or theism, etc. In itself, it is not inconsistent with any essential Catholic doctrine.

In conclusion, it may be interesting to note the contrast between the modern and the Aristotelean terminology. Aristotle's dynamis and energeia (see ACTUS ET POTENTIA) are essentially opposed. Today, they have come to be almost synonymous, and energetism is one of the dynamic views of matter.

LEIBNIZ, Oeuvres philosophiques (Paris, 1867). especially Monadologie; Principes de la nature et de la grâce; Système nouveau de la nature; Théodicée; Nouveaux essais sur l'entendement; WOLFF, Cosmologia generalis (new ed. Frankfort and Leipzig, 1737). especially secs. 176 sqq., 221 sqq.; BOSCOVICH, Theoria philosophiæ naturalis (Venice, 1763); KANT, Werke (Berlin 1902), especially Monadologia physica, I, 473 and Metephysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft, IV, 465; FARADAY, Experimental Researches in Electricity (London, 1839-1855), especially Thoughts on Ray-vibrations, III, 448 and A Speculation touching Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter II, 284, both reprinted from Philosophical Magazine, XXIV, XXVIII; OSTWALD, Vorlesungen über Naturphilosophie (2nd ed. Leipzig, 1902); MABILLEAU, Hist. de la phil. atomistique (Paris, 1895); NYS, Cosmologie (2nd ed. Louvain, 1906). Cf. also histories of philosophy, Works on radio-activit by CURIE, RUTHERFORD, LODGE, THOMSON, LE BON, etc. and the less technical presentation of DUNCAN, The New Knowledge (New York, 1906) and JONES, The Electrical Nature of Matter and Radioactivity (New York, 1906); EISLER, Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe (2nd ed. Berlin, 1904), s. v, Monade, Materie, etc.

C.A. DUBRAY

Eadmer

Precentor of Canterbury and historian, born 1064 (?); died 1124 (?). Brought up at Christ Church ab infantiâ, he became after St. Anselm's consecration, in 1079, his intimate companion. After Anselm's death his chief occupation was writing. He had made notes of the saint's doings and discourses and of the affairs in which he had been engaged, and from these he compiled his chief works, the "Historia Novorum" and the Vita S. Anselmi" (ed. M. Rule, 1884, in Rolls Series). Eadmer's "Opuscula" comprise verses of Sts. Dunstan and Edward, the lives of Sts. Wilfrid, Odo, Dunstan, Oswald, Bregwin (printed in Wharton, Anglia Sancta). Of his theological works themost noteworthy is the "De conceptione Sanctae Mariae", a tract of much importance for the development of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception(see Thurston's ed., Freiburg, 1904, and "The Month", July and August, 1904, for the discussion of the date of his death). In 1121 he was electedto the See of St. Andrews, but by refusing to be ordained except by the Archbishop of York, he put an insuperable bar to his own promotion.

J.H. POLLEN

Eanbald I

The first Archbishop of York by that name (not to be confused with Eanbald II). Date of birth unknown; died 10 August, 796. Most of his life was probably spent in the monastery of York. As one of the officials in the monastery he, conjointly with Alcuin, superintended the rebuilding of the minster. Albert, in his declining years, chose Eanbald to be his coadjutor and successor. He succeeded to the archbishopric in 782 (some say 778). His firstcare was to obtain the pallium and Alcuin went to Rome to bring it; on his return Eanbald was solemnly confirmed in his office. He lived in troublous times. Nevertheless Eanbald carried on the School of York and treasured its great library. In August, 791, he consecrated Baldulf Bishop of Whitherne. His last public act was on 25 June, 796, when he crowned Eardulf King of Northumbria. He died at the monastery of Etlete or Edete. His body was taken to York and buried in the minster.

G.E. HIND

Eanbald II

Date of birth unknown; died 810 or 812. He received his education in the famous School of York where he was Alcuin's pupil. On the death of Eanbald I he was chosen his successor. On 8 September, 797, having received the pallium from Rome, he was solemnly confirmed in the archbishopric.

He assisted Ethelhard, Archbishop of Canterbury, to recover the prerogatives of which he had been despoiled by Offa. In 798 he assembled his clergy in synod at Pinchenheale (Finchale, near Durham) and there enacted a number of wise regulations relating to the ecclesiastical courts and the observance of Easter. Some think he was the author of a volume of decrees and that he was the first to introduce the Roman Ritual in the church of York.

G.E. HIND

Easter

The English term, according to the Ven. Bede (De temporum ratione, I, v), relates to Estre, a Teutonic goddess of the rising light of day and spring, which deity, however, is otherwise unknown, even in the Edda (Simrock, Mythol., 362); Anglo-Saxon, eâster, eâstron; Old High German, ôstra, ôstrara, ôstrarûn; German, Ostern. April was called easter-monadh. The plural eâstron is used, because the feast lasts seven days. Like the French plural Pâques, it is a translation from the Latin Festa Paschalia, the entire octave of Easter. The Greek term for Easter, pascha, has nothing in common with the verb paschein, "to suffer," although by the later symbolic writers it was connected with it; it is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word pesach (transitus, passover). The Greeks called Easter the pascha anastasimon; Good Friday the pascha staurosimon. The respective terms used by the Latins are Pascha resurrectionis and Pascha crucifixionis. In the Roman and Monastic Breviaries the feast bears the title Dominica Resurrectionis; in the Mozarbic Breviary, In Lætatione Diei Pasch Resurrectionis; in the Ambrosian Breviary, In Die Sancto Paschæ. The Romance languages have adopted the Hebrew-Greek term: Latin, Pascha; Italian, Pasqua; Spanish, Pascua; French, Pâques. Also some Celtic and Teutonic nations use it: Scottish, Pask; Dutch, Paschen; Danish, Paaske; Swedish, Pask; even in the German provinces of the Lower Rhine the people call the feast Paisken not Ostern. The word is, principally in Spain and Italy, identified with the word "solemnity" and extended to other feasts, e.g. Sp., Pascua florida, Palm Sunday; Pascua de Pentecostes, Pentecost; Pascua de la Natividad, Christmas; Pascua de Epifania, Epiphany. In some parts of France also First Communion is called Pâques, whatever time of the year administered.

THE FEAST

Easter is the principal feast of the ecclesiastical year. Leo I (Sermo xlvii in Exodum) calls it the greatest feast (festum festorum), and says that Christmas is celebrated only in preparation for Easter. It is the centre of the greater part of the ecclesiastical year. The order of Sundays from Septuagesima to the last Sunday after Pentecost, the feast of the Ascension, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, and all other movable feasts, from that of the Prayer of Jesus in the Garden (Tuesday after Septuagesima) to the feast of the Sacred Heart (Friday after the octave of Corpus Christi), depend upon the Easter date. Commemorating the slaying of the true Lamb of God and the Resurrection of Christ, the corner-stone upon which faith is built, it is also the oldest feast of the Christian Church, as old as Christianity, the connecting link between the Old and New Testaments. That the Apostolic Fathers do not mention it and that we first hear of it principally through the controversy of the Quartodecimans are purely accidental. The connection between the Jewish Passover and the Christian feast of Easter is real and ideal. Real, since Christ died on the first Jewish Easter Day; ideal, like the relation between type and reality, because Christ's death and Resurrection had its figures and types in the Old Law, particularly in the paschal lamb, which was eaten towards evening of the 14th of Nisan. In fact, the Jewish feast was taken over into the Christian Easter celebration; the liturgy (Exsultet) sings of the passing of Israel through the Red Sea, the paschal lamb, the column of fire, etc. Apart, however, from the Jewish feast, the Christians would have celebrated the anniversary of the death and the Resurrection of Christ. But for such a feast it was necessary to know the exact calendar date of Christ's death. To know this day was very simple for the Jews; it was the day after the 14th of the first month, the 15th of Nisan of their calendar. But in other countries of the vast Roman Empire there were other systems of chronology. The Romans from 45 B.C. had used the reformed Julian calendar; there were also the Egyptian and the Syro-Macedonian calendar. The foundation of the Jewish calendar was the lunar year of 354 days, whilst the other systems depended on the solar year. In consequence the first days of the Jewish months and years did not coincide with any fixed days of the Roman solar year. Every fourth year of the Jewish system had an intercalary month. Since this month was inserted, not according to some scientific method or some definite rule, but arbitrarily, by command of the Sanhedrin, a distant Jewish date can never with certainty be transposed into the corresponding Julian or Gregorian date (Ideler, Chronologie, I, 570 sq.). The connection between the Jewish and the Christian Pasch explains the movable character of this feast. Easter has no fixed date, like Christmas, because the 15th of Nisan of the Semitic calendar was shifting from date to date on the Julian calendar. Since Christ, the true Paschal Lamb, had been slain on the very day when the Jews, in celebration of their Passover, immolated the figurative lamb, the Jewish Christians in the Orient followed the Jewish method, and commemorated the death of Christ on the 15th of Nisan and His Resurrection on the 17th of Nisan, no matter on what day of the week they fell. For this observance they claimed the authority of St. John and St. Philip.

In the rest of the empire another consideration predominated. Every Sunday of the year was a commemoration of the Resurrection of Christ, which had occurred on a Sunday. Because the Sunday after 14 Nisan was the historical day of the Resurrection, at Rome this Sunday became the Christian feast of Easter. Easter was celebrated in Rome and Alexandria on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox, and the Roman Church claimed for this observance the authority of Sts. Peter and Paul. The spring equinox in Rome fell on 25 March; in Alexandria on 21 March. At Antioch Easter was kept on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover. (See EASTER CONTROVERSY.) In Gaul a number of bishops, wishing to escape the difficulties of the paschal computation, seem to have assigned Easter to a fixed date of the Roman calendar, celebrating the death of Christ on 25 March, His Resurrection on 27 March (Marinus Dumiensis in P.L., LXXII, 47-51), since already in the third century 25 March was considered the day of the Crucifixion (Computus Pseudocyprianus, ed. Lersch, Chronologie, II, 61). This practice was of short duration. Many calendars in the Middle Ages contain these same dates (25 March, 27 March) for purely historical, not liturgical, reasons (Grotenfend, Zeitrechnung, II, 46, 60, 72, 106, 110, etc.). The Montanists in Asia Minor kept Easter on the Sunday after 6 April (Schmid, Osterfestberechnung in der abendlandischen Kirche). The First Council of Nicaea (325) decreed that the Roman practice should be observed throughout the Church. But even at Rome the Easter term was changed repeatedly. Those who continued to keep Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans (14 Nisan) and were excluded from the Church. The computus paschalis, the method of determining the date of Easter and the dependent feasts, was of old considered so important that Durandus (Rit. div. off., 8, c.i.) declares a priest unworthy of the name who does not know the computus paschalis. The movable character of Easter (22 March to 25 April) gives rise to inconveniences, especially in modern times. For decades scientists and other people have worked in vain for a simplification of the computus, assigning Easter to the first Sunday in April or to the Sunday nearest the 7th of April. Some even wish to put every Sunday to a certain date of the month, e.g. beginning with New Year's always on a Sunday, etc. [See L. Günther, "Zeitschrift Weltall" (1903); Sandhage and P. Dueren in "Pastor bonus" (Trier, 1906); C. Tondini, "L'Italia e la questione del Calendario" (Florence, 1905).]

THE EASTER OFFICE AND MASS

The first Vespers of Easter are connected now with the Mass of Holy Saturday, because that Mass was formerly celebrated in the evening (see HOLY SATURDAY); they consist of only one psalm (cxvi) and the Magnificat. The Matins have only one Nocturn; the Office is short, because the clergy were busy with catechumens, the reconciliation of sinners, and the distribution of alms, which were given plentifully by the rich on Easter Day. This peculiarity of reciting only one Nocturn was extended by some churches from the octave of Easter to the entire paschal time, and soon to all the feasts of the Apostles and similar high feasts of the entire ecclesiastical year. This observance is found in the German Breviaries far up into the nineteenth century ("Brev. Monaster.", 1830; Baumer, "Breview", 312). The octave of Easter ceases with None of Saturday and on Sunday the three Nocturns with the eighteen psalms of the ordinary Sunday Office are recited. Many churches, however, during the Middle Ages and later (Brev. Monaster., 1830), on Low Sunday (Dominica in Albis) repeated the short Nocturn of Easter Week. Before the usus Romanae Curiae (Baumer, 301). was spread by the Franciscans over the entire Church the eighteen (or twenty-four) psalms of the regular Sunday Matins were, three by three, distributed over the Matins of Easter Week (Bäumer, 301). This observance is still one of the peculiarities of the Carmelite Breviary. The simplified Breviary of the Roman Cria (twelfth century) established the custom of repeating Psalms i, ii, iii, every day of the octave. From the ninth to the thirteenth century in most dioceses, during the entire Easter Week the two precepts of hearing Mass and of abstaining from servile work were observed (Kellner, Heortologie, 17); later on this law was limited to two days (Monday and Tuesday), and since the end of the eighteenth century, to Monday only. In the United States even Monday is no holiday of obligation. The first three days of Easter Week are doubles of the first class, the other days semi-doubles. During this week, in the Roman Office, through immemorial custom the hymns are omitted, or rather were never inserted. The ancient ecclesiastical Office contained no hymns, and out of respect for the great solemnity of Easter and the ancient jubilus "Haec Dies", the Roman Church did not touch the old Easter Office by introducing hymns. Therefore to the present day the Office of Easter consists only of psalms, antiphons, and the great lessons of Matins. Only the "Victimae Paschali" was adopted in most of the churches and religious orders in the Second Vespers. The Mozarabic and Ambrosian Offices use the Ambrosian hymn "Hic est dies versus Dei" in Lauds and Vespers, the Monastic Breviary, "Ad coenam Agni providi" at Vespers, "Chorus novae Jerusalem" at Matins, and "Aurora lucis rutilat" at Lauds. The Monastic Breviary has also three Nocturns on Easter Day. Besides the hymns the chapter is omitted and the Little Hours have no antiphons; the place of the hymns, chapters, and little responses is taken by the jubilus, "Haec Dies quam fecit Dominus, exultemus et laetemur in ea". The Masses of Easter Week have a sequence of dramatic character, "Victimae paschali", which was composed by Wipo, a Burgundian priest at the courts of Conrad II and Henry III. The present Preface is abridged from the longer Preface of the Gregorian Sacramentary. The "Communicantes" and "Hanc igitur" contain references to the solemn baptism of Easter eve. To the "Benedicamus Domino" of Lauds and Vespers and to the "Ite Missa est" of the Mass two alleluias are added during the entire octave. Every day of the octave has a special Mass; an old MS. Spanish missal of 855 contains three Masses for Easter Sunday; the Gallican missals have two Masses for every day of the week, one of which was celebrated at four in the morning, preceded by a procession (Migne, La Liturgie Catholique, Paris, 1863, p. 952). In the Gelasian Sacramentary every day of Easter Week has its own Preface (Probst, Sacramentarien, p. 226).

To have a correct idea of the Easter celebration and its Masses, we must remember that it was intimately connected with the solemn rite of baptism. The preparatory liturgical acts commenced on the eve and were continued during the night. When the number of persons to be baptized was great, the sacramental ceremonies and the Easter celebration were united. This connection was severed at a time when, the discipline having changed, even the recollection of the old traditions was lost. The greater part of the ceremonies was transferred to the morning hours of Holy Saturday. This change, however, did not produce a new liturgical creation adapted to the new order of things. The old baptismal ceremonies were left untouched and have now, apparently, no other reason for preservation than their antiquity. The gap left in the liturgical services after the solemnities of the night had been transferred to the morning of Holy Saturday was filled in France, Germany, and in some other countries by a twofold new ceremony, which, however, was never adopted in Rome.

First, there was the commemoration of the Resurrection of Christ. At midnight, before Matins, the clergy in silence entered the dark church and removed the cross from the sepulchre to the high altar. Then the candles were lit, the doors opened, and a solemn procession was held with the cross through the church, the cloister, or cemetery. Whilst the procession moved from the altar to the door, the beautiful old antiphon, "Cum Rex gloriae", was sung, the first part softly (humili ac depressâ voce), to symbolize the sadness of the souls in limbo; from Advenisti desiderabilis the singers raised their voices in jubilation whilst the acolytes rang small bells which they carried. The full text of this antiphon, which has disappeared from the liturgy, follows:

Cum rex gloriae Christus infernum debellaturus intraret, et chorus angelicus ante faciem ejus protas principum tolli praeciperet, sanctorum populus, qui tenebatur in morte captivus, voce lacrimabili clamabat dicens: Advenisti desiderabilis, quem expectabamus in tenebris, ut educered hac nocte vinculatos de claustris. Te nostra vocabant suspiria, te large requirebant lamenta, tu factus est spes desperatis, magna consolatio in tormentis. Alleluja.

When the procession returned, in many churches the "Attollite portas" (Ps. xxiii) was sung at the door, in order to symbolize the victorious entry of Christ into limbo and hell. After the procession Matins were sung. In later centuries the Blessed Sacrament took the place of the cross in the procession. This ceremony is, with the approval of the Holy See, still held in Germany on the eve of Easter with simpler ceremonies, in the form of a popular devotion.

Second, the visitation of the Sepulchre. After the third lesson of the Nocturn two clerics, representing the holy women, went to the empty sepulchre where another cleric (angel) announced to them that the Saviour was risen. The two then brought the message to the choir, whereupon two priests, impersonating Peter and John, ran to the tomb and, finding it empty, shoed to the people the linen in which the body had been wrapped. Then the choir sang the "Te Deum" and the "Victimae paschali". In some churches, e.g. at Rouen, the apparition of Christ to Mary Magdalen was also represented. Out of this solemn ceremony, which dates back to the tenth century, grew the numerous Easter plays. (Nord-Amerikanisches Pastoralblatt, Oct., 1907, p. 149, has a long article on these two ceremonies.) The Easter plays in the beginning used only the words of the Gospels and the "Victimae paschali"; in the course of development they became regular dramas, in Latin or vernacular verses, which contained the negotiation between the vender of unguents and the three women, the dialogue between Pilate and the Jews asking for soldiers to guard the Sepulchre, the contest of Peter and John running to the tomb, the risen Saviour appearing to Magdalen, and the descent of Christ into hell. Towards the end of the Middle Ages the tone of these plays became worldly, and they were filled with long burlesque speeches of salve-dealers, Jews, soldiers, and demons (Creizenach, Gesch, des neuen Dramas, Halle, 1893).

The procession combined with the solemn Second Vespers of Easter Sunday is very old. There was great variety in the manner of solemnizing these Vespers. The service commenced with the nine Kyrie Eleisons, sung as in the Easter Mass, even sometimes with the corresponding trope lux et origo boni. After the third psalm the whole choir went in procession to the baptismal chapel, where the fourth psalm, the "Victimae paschali", and the Magnificat were sung: thence the procession moved to the great cross at the entrance to the sanctuary (choir), and from there, after the fifth psalm and the Magnificat were sung, to the empty sepulchre, where the services were concluded. The Carmelites and a number of French dioceses, e.g. Paris, Lyons, Besancon, Chartres, Laval, have, with the permission of the Holy See, retained these solemn Easter Vespers since the re-introduction of the Roman Breviary. But they are celebrated differently in every diocese, very much modernized in some churches. At Lyons the Magnificat is sung three times. In Cologne and Trier the solemn Vespers of Easter were abolished in the nineteenth century (Nord-Amerikanisches Pastoralblatt, April, 1908, p. 50). Whilst the Latin Rite admits only commemorations in Lauds, Mass, and Vespers from Wednesday in Easter Week and excludes any commemoration on the first three days of the week, the Greek and Russian Churches transfer the occurring Offices (canons) of the saints from Matins to Complin during the entire octave, even on Easter Sunday. After the Anti-pascha (Low Sunday), the canons and other canticles of Easter are continued in the entire Office up to Ascension Day, and the canons of the saints take only the second place in Matins. Also the Greeks and Russians have a solemn procession at midnight, before Matins, during which they sing at the door of the church Ps. lxvii, repeating after each verse the Easter antiphon. When the procession leaves, the church is dark; when it returns, hundreds of candles and coloured lamps are lit to represent the splendour of Christ's Resurrection. After Lauds all those who are present give each other the Easter kiss, not excluding even the beggar. One says: "Christ is risen"; the other answers: "He is truly risen"; and these words are the Russians' greeting during Easter time. A similar custom had, through the influence of the Byzantine court, been adopted at Rome for a time. The greeting was: Surrexit Dominus vere; R. Et apparuit Simoni. (Maximilianus, Princ. Sax., Praelect. de liturg. Orient., I, 114; Martene, De antiq. Eccl. rit., c. xxv, 5.) The Armenian Church during the entire time from Easter to Pentecost celebrates the Resurrection alone to the exclusion of all feasts of the saints. On Easter Monday they keep All Souls' Day, the Saturday of the same week the Decollation of St. John, the third Sunday after Easter the founding of the first Christian Church on Sion and of the Church in general, the fifth Sunday the Apparition of the Holy Cross at Jerusalem, then on Thursday the Ascension of Christ, and the Sunday after the feast of the great Vision of St. Gregory. From Easter to Ascension the Armenians never fast or do they abstain from meat (C. Tondini de Quaranghi, Calendrier de la Nation Arménienne). In the Mozarabic Rite of Spain, after the Pater Noster on Easter Day and during the week the priest intones the particula "Regnum" and sings "Vicit Leo de Tribu Juda radix David Alleluja". The people answer: "Qui sedes super Cherubim radix David. Alleluja". This is sung three times (Missale Mozarab.). In some cities of Spain before sunrise two processions leave the principal church; one with the image of Mary covered by a black veil; another with the Blessed Sacrament. The processions move on in silence until they meet at a predetermined place; then the veil is removed from the image of Mary and the clergy with the people sing the "regina Coeli" (Guéranger, Kirchenjarh, VII, 166). For the sanctuary at Emmaus in the Holy Land the Holy See has approved a special feast on Easter Monday, "Solemnitas manifestationis D.N.I. Chr. Resurg., Titul. Eccles. dupl. I Cl.", with proper Mass and Office (Cal. Rom. Seraph. in Terrae S. Custodia, 1907).

PECULIAR CUSTOMS OF EASTER TIME

1. Risus Paschalis

This strange custom originated in Bavaria in the fifteenth century. The priest inserted in his sermon funny stories which would cause his hearers to laugh (Ostermärlein), e.g. a description of how the devil tries to keep the doors of hell locked against the descending Christ. Then the speaker would draw the moral from the story. This Easter laughter, giving rise to grave abuses of the word of God, was prohibited by Clement X (1670-1676) and in the eighteenth century by Maximilian III and the bishops of Bavaria (Wagner, De Risu Paschali, Königsberg, 1705; Linsemeier, Predigt in Deutschland, Munich, 1886).

2. Easter Eggs

Because the use of eggs was forbidden during Lent, they were brought to the table on Easter Day, coloured red to symbolize the Easter joy. This custom is found not only in the Latin but also in the Oriental Churches. The symbolic meaning of a new creation of mankind by Jesus risen from the dead was probably an invention of later times. The custom may have its origin in paganism, for a great many pagan customs, celebrating the return of spring, gravitated to Easter. The egg is the emblem of the germinating life of early spring. Easter eggs, the children are told, come from Rome with the bells which on Thursday go to Rome and return Saturday morning. The sponsors in some countries give Easter eggs to their god-children. Coloured eggs are used by children at Easter in a sort of game which consists in testing the strength of the shells (Kraus, Real-Encyklop die, s. v. Ei). Both coloured and uncoloured eggs are used in some parts of the United States for this game, known as "egg-picking". Another practice is the "egg-rolling" by children on Easter Monday on the lawn of the White House in Washington.

3. The Easter Rabbit

The Easter Rabbit lays the eggs, for which reason they are hidden in a nest or in the garden. The rabbit is a pagan symbol and has always been an emblem of fertility (Simrock, Mythologie, 551).

4. Handball

In France handball playing was one of the Easter amusements, found also in Germany (Simrock, op. cit., 575). The ball may represent the sun, which is believed to take three leaps in rising on Easter morning. Bishops, priests, and monks, after the strict discipline of Lent, used to play ball during Easter week (Beleth, Expl. Div. off., 120). This was called libertas Decembrica, because formerly in December, the masters used to play ball with their servants, maids, and shepherds. The ball game was connected with a dance, in which even bishops and abbots took part. At Auxerre, Besancon, etc. the dance was performed in church to the strains of the "Victimae paschali". In England, also, the game of ball was a favourite Easter sport in which the municipal corporation engaged with due parade and dignity. And at Bury St. Edmunds, within recent years, the game was kept up with great spirit by twelve old women. After the game and the dance a banquet was given, during which a homily on the feast was read. All these customs disappeared for obvious reasons (Kirchenlex., IV, 1414).

5. Men and women

On Easter Monday the women had a right to strike their husbands, on Tuesday the men struck their wives, as in December the servants scolded their masters. Husbands and wives did this "ut ostendant sese mutuo debere corrigere, ne illo tempore alter ab altero thori debitum exigat" (Beleth, I, c. cxx; Durandus, I, c. vi, 86). In the northern parts of England the men parade the streets on Easter Sunday and claim the privilege of lifting every woman three times from the ground, receiving in payment a kiss or a silver sixpence. The same is done by the women to the men on the next day. In the Neumark (Germany) on Easter Day the men servants whip the maid servants with switches; on Monday the maids whip the men. They secure their release with Easter eggs. These customs are probably of pre-Christian origin (Reinsberg-Düringsfeld, Das festliche Jahr, 118).

6. The Easter Fire

The Easter Fire is lit on the top of mountains (Easter mountain, Osterberg) and must be kindled from new fire, drawn from wood by friction (nodfyr); this is a custom of pagan origin in vogue all over Europe, signifying the victory of spring over winter. The bishops issued severe edicts against the sacrilegious Easter fires (Conc. Germanicum, a. 742, c.v.; Council of Lestines, a. 743, n. 15), but did not succeed in abolishing them everywhere. The Church adopted the observance into the Easter ceremonies, referring it to the fiery column in the desert and to the Resurrection of Christ; the new fire on Holy Saturday is drawn from flint, symbolizing the Resurrection of the Light of the World from the tomb closed by a stone (Missale Rom.). In some places a figure was thrown into the Easter fire, symbolizing winter, but to the Christians on the Rhine, in Tyrol and Bohemia, Judas the traitor (Reinsberg-Düringfeld, Das festliche Jahr, 112 sq.).

7. Processions and awakenings

At Puy in France, from time immemorial to the tenth century, it was customary, when at the first psalm of Matins a canon was absent from the choir, for some of the canons and vicars, taking with them the processional cross and the holy water, to go to the house of the absentee, sing the "Haec Dies", sprinkle him with water, if he was still in bed, and lead him to the church. In punishment he had to give a breakfast to his conductors. A similar custom is found in the fifteenth century at Nantes and Angers, where it was prohibited by the diocesan synods in 1431 and 1448. In some parts of Germany parents and children try to surprise each other in bed on Easter morning to apply the health-giving switches (Freyde, Ostern in deutscher Sage, Sitte und Dichtung, 1893).

8. Blessing of food

In both the Oriental and Latin Churches, it is customary to have those victuals which were prohibited during Lent blessed by the priests before eating them on Easter Day, especially meat, eggs, butter, and cheese (Ritualbucher, Paderborn, 1904; Maximilianus, Liturg. or., 117). Those who ate before the food was blessed, according to popular belief, were punished by God, sometimes instantaneously (Migne, Liturgie, s.v. Pâques).

9. House blessings

On the eve of Easter the homes are blessed (Rit. Rom., tit. 8, c. iv) in memory of the passing of the angel in Egypt and the signing of the door-posts with the blood of the paschal lamb. The parish priest visits the houses of his parish; the papal apartments are also blessed on this day. The room, however, in which the pope is found by the visiting cardinal is blessed by the pontiff himself (Moroni, Dizionariq, s.v. Pasqua).

10. Sports and celebrations

The Greeks and Russians after their long, severe Lent make Easter a day of popular sports. At Constantinople the cemetery of Pera is the noisy rendezvous of the Greeks; there are music, dances, and all the pleasures of an Oriental popular resort; the same custom prevails in the cities of Russia. In Russia anyone can enter the belfries on Easter and ring the bells, a privilege of which many persons avail themselves.

DUCHESNE, Orig. du Culte Chret. (Paris, 1889); KELLNER, Heortologie (Freiburg im Br., 1906); PROBST, Die altesten romischen Sacramentarien und Ordines (Munster, 1892); GUERANGER, Das Kirchenjahr, Ger. tr. (Mainz, 1878), V, 7; KRAUS, Real-Encyk.; BERNARD, Cours de Liturgie Romaine; HAMPSON, Calendarium Medii AEvi (London, 1857); Kirchenlex., IX, cols. 1121-41; NILLES, Calendarium utriusque Ecclesiae (Innsbruck, 1897); MIGNE, La Liturgie Catholique (Paris, 1863); BINTERIM, Denkwurdigkeiten (Mainz, 1837); GROTEFEND, Zeitrechnung (Hanover, 1891-1898); LERSCH, Einleitung in die Chronologie (Freiburg, 1899); BACH, Die Osterberechnung (Freiburg, 1907); SCHWARTZ, Christliche und judische Ostertafeln (Berlin, 1905); Suntne Latini Quartodecimani? (Prague, 1906); DUCHESNE, La question de la Paque du Concile de Nicee in Revue des quest. histor. (1880), 5 sq.; KRUSCH, Studien zur christlish- mittelalterlichen Chronologie (Leipzig, 1880); ROCK, The Church of Our Fathers (London, 1905), IV; ALBERS, Festtage des Herrn und seiner Heiligen (Paderborn, 1890).

FREDERICK G. HOLWECK

Easter Controversy

Ecclesiastical history preserves the memory of three distinct phases of the dispute regarding the proper time of observing Easter. It will add to clearness if we in the first place state what is certain regarding the date and the nature of these three categories.

FIRST PHASE

The first was mainly concerned with the lawfulness of celebrating Easter on a weekday. We read in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V, xxiii): "A question of no small importance arose at that time [i.e. the time of Pope Victor, about A.D. 190]. The dioceses of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should always be observed as the feast of the life-giving pasch [epi tes tou soteriou Pascha heortes], contending that the fast ought to end on that day, whatever day of the week it might happen to be. However it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this point, as they observed the practice, which from Apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the Resurrection of our Saviour. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all with one consent through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the Resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other day but the Sunday and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on that day only." These words of the Father of Church History, followed by some extracts which he makes from the controversial letters of the time, tell us almost all that we know concerning the paschal controversy in its first stage. A letter of St. Irenaeus is among the extracts just referred to, and this shows that the diversity of practice regarding Easter had existed at least from the time of Pope Sixtus (c. 120). Further, Irenaeus states that St. Polycarp, who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, came to Rome c. 150 about this very question, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodeciman observance. Nevertheless he was not debarred from communion with the Roman Church, and St. Irenaeus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189-99) with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessors. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the Holy Day of the Jews, the fourteenth of Nisan, which might occur on any day of the week. Those who kept Easter with the Jews were called Quartodecimans or terountes (observants); but even in the time of Pope Victor this usage hardly extended beyond the churches of Asia Minor. After the pope's strong measures the Quartodecimans seem to have gradually dwindled away. Origen in the "Philosophumena" (VIII, xviii) seems to regard them as a mere handful of wrong-headed nonconformists.

SECOND PHASE

The second stage in the Easter controversy centres round the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Granted that the great Easter festival was always to be held on a Sunday, and was not to coincide with a particular phase of the moon, which might occur on any day of the week, a new dispute arose as to the determination of the Sunday itself. The text of the decree of the Council of Nicaea which settled, or at least indicated a final settlement of, the difficulty has not been preserved to us, but we have an important document inserted in Eusebius's "Life of Constantine" (III, xviii sq.). The emperor himself, writing to the Churches after the Council of Nicaea, exhorts them to adopt its conclusions and says among other things: "At this meeting the question concerning the most holy day of Easter was discussed, and it was resolved by the united judgment of all present that this feast ought to be kept by all and in every place on one and the same day. . . And first of all it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin. . . for we have received form our Saviour a different way. . . And I myself have undertaken that this decision should meet with the approval of your Sagacities in the hope that your Wisdoms will gladly admit that practice which is observed at once in the city of Rome and in Africa, throughout Italy and in Egypt. . . with entire unity of judgment." From this and other indications which cannot be specified here (see, e.g. Eusebius, "De Paschate" in Schmid, "Osterfestfrage", pp. 58-59) we learn that the dispute now lay between the Christians of Syria and Mesopotamia and the rest of the world. The important Church of Antioch was still dependent upon the Jewish calendar for its Easter. The Syrian Christians always held their Easter festival on the Sunday after the Jews kept their Pasch. On the other hand at Alexandria, and seemingly throughout the rest of the Roman Empire, the Christians calculated the time of Easter for themselves, paying no attention to the Jews. In this way the date of Easter as kept at Alexandria and Antioch did not always agree; for the Jews, upon whom Antioch depended, adopted very arbitrary methods of intercalating embolismic months (see CALENDAR, Bol. II, p. 158) before they celebrated Nisan, the first spring month, on the fourteenth day of which the paschal lamb was killed. In particular we learn that they had become neglectful (or at least the Christians of Rome and Alexandria declared they were neglectful) of the law that the fourteenth of Nisan must never precede the equinox (see Schwartz, Christliche und judische Ostertafeln, pp. 138 sqq.). Thus Constantine in the letter quoted above protests with horror that the Jews sometimes kept two Paschs in one year, meaning that two Paschs sometimes fell between one equinox and the next.

The Alexandrians, on the other hand, accepted it as a first principle that the Sunday to be kept as Easter Day must necessarily occur after the vernal equinox, then identified with 21 March of the Julian year. This was the main difficulty which was decided by the Council of Nicaea. Even among the Christians who calculated Easter for themselves there had been considerable variations (partly due to a divergent reckoning of the date of the equinox), and as recently as 314, in the Council of Arles, it had been laid down that in future Easter should be kept uno die et uno tempore per ommnem orbem, and that to secure this uniformity the pope should send out letters to all the Churches. The Council of Nicaea seems to have extended further the principle here laid down. As already stated, we have not its exact words, but we may safely infer from scattered notices that the council ruled:

• that Easter must be celebrated by all throughout the world on the same Sunday;
• that this Sunday must follow the fourteenth day of the paschal moon;
• that that moon was to be accounted the paschal moon whose fourteenth day followed the spring equinox;
• that some provision should be made, probably by the Church of Alexandria as best skilled in astronomical calculations, for determining the proper date of Easter and communicating it to the rest of the world (see St. Leo to the Emperor Marcian in Migne, P.L., LIV, 1055).

This ruling of the Council of Nicaea did not remove all difficulties nor at once win universal acceptance among the Syrians. But to judge from the strongly worded canon i of the Council of Antioch (A.D. 341; see Hefele-Leclereq, "Conciles", I, 714), as also from the language of the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons (see Schmid, Osterfestfrage, p. 63), the Syrian bishops loyally co-operated in carrying into effect the decision of the Council of Nicaea. In Rome and Alexandria the lunar cycles by which the occurrence of Easter was determined was not uniform. Rome, after the hundred-and-twelve year cycle of Hippolytus, adopted an eighty-four year cycle, but neither gave satisfactory results. Alexandria adhered to the more accurate nineteen-year cycle of Meton. But it seems to be clearly established by the most recent researches (see Schwartz, op. cit., pp. 28-29) that the lunar cycles were never understood to be more than aids towards ascertaining the correct date of Easter, also that where the calculations of Rome and Alexandria led to divergent results, compromises were made upon both sides and that the final decision always lay with accepted ecclesiastical authority.

THIRD PHASE

It was to the divergent cycles which Rome had successively adopted and rejected in its attempt to determine Easter more accurately that the third stage in the paschal controversy was mainly due. The Roman missionaries coming to England in the time of St. Gregory the Great found the British Christians, the representatives of that Christianity which had been introduced into Britain during the period of the Roman occupation, still adhering to an ancient system of Easter-computation which Rome itself had laid aside. The British and Irish Christians were not Quartodecimans, as some unwarrantably accused them of being, for they kept the Easter festival upon a Sunday. They are supposed (e.g. by Krusch) to have observed an eight-four year cycle and not the five-hundred and thirty two year cycle of Victorius which was adopted in Gaul, but the most recent investigator of the question (Schwartz, p. 103) declares it to be impossible to determine what system they followed and himself inclines to the opinion that they derived their rule for the determining of Easter direct from Asia Minor. (See, however, the very opposite conclusions of Joseph Schmid, ("Die Osterfestberechnung auf den britischen Inseln", 1904.) The story of this controversy, which together with the difference in the shape of tonsure, seems to have prevented all fraternization between the British Christians and the Roman missionaries, is told at length in the pages of Bede. The British appealed to the tradition of St. John, the Romans to that of St. Peter, both sides with little reason, and neither without the suspicion of forgery. It was not until the Synod of Whitby in 664 that the Christians of Northern Britain, who had derived their instruction in the Faith from the Scottish (i.e. Irish) missionaries, at last at the instance of Bishop Wilfrid and through the example of King Oswy accepted the Roman system and came into friendly relations with the bishops of the South. Even then in Ireland and in parts of the North some years passed before the adoption of the Roman Easter became general (Moran, Essays on the Origin, Doctrines and Discipline of the Early Irish Church, Dublin, 1864).

POINTS OF OBSCURITY

These are the facts regarding the Easter controversy which are now generally admitted. Many other subsidiary details have an important bearing on the case but are more matters of conjecture. There is, for example, the perplexing doubt whether the Crucifixion of Christ took place on the fourteenth or fifteenth of Nisan. The Synoptists seem to favour the latter, St. John the former date. Clearly we should expect to find that according to the answer given to this question, the position of the earliest possible Easter Sunday in the lunar month would also change. Again, there is the problem, much debated by modern scholars, whether the Pasch which the early Christians desired to commemorate was primarily the Passion or the Resurrection of Christ. Upon this point also our date do not admit of a very positive answer. It has been very strongly urged that the writers of the first two centuries who speak of the Pasch have always in view the pascha staurosimon, the Crucifixion Day, when Jesus Christ Himself was offered as the Victim, the antitype of the Jewish paschal lamb. Supporters of this opinion often contend that the Resurrection was held to be sufficiently commemorated by the weekly Sunday, on the vigil of which the night-watch was kept, the Liturgy being celebrated in the morning. In any case it must be admitted that while in the New Testament we have definite mention of the observance of the Sunday, or "Lord's Day", there is no conclusive evidence in the first century or more of the keeping of the Pasch as a festival. Some are inclined to think that the Christian Easter first appears as setting a term to the great paschal fast which, as we learn from Irenaeus, was very variously kept in the sub-Apostolic Age. Another class of obscure and rather intricate questions, about which it is difficult to speak positively, regards the limits of the paschal period as laid down by the computation of rome before the tables of Dionysius Exiguus and the Metonic cycle were finally adopted there in 525. According to one system Easter Day might fall between the fourteenth and twentieth day inclusive of the paschal moon; and although this implies that when Easter fell on the fourteenth it coincided with the Jewish Pasch, the Roman Church, observing its eighty-four-year cycle, at one time permitted this (so at least Krusch contends; see "Der 84-jahrige Ostercyclus und seine Quellen", pp. 20 and 65). Certain it is that the data of the supputatio Romana did not always agree with those of Alexandria, and in particular it seems that Rome, rejecting 22 March as the earliest possible date of Easter, only allowed the 23rd, while, on the other hand, the latest possible date according to the Roman system was 21 April. This sometimes brought about an impasse which was relieved only by accepting the Alexandrian solution. Other computations allowed Easter to fall between the fifteenth and twenty-first day of the paschal moon and others between the sixteenth and the twenty- second.

What is perhaps most important to remember, both in the solution adopted in 525 and in that officially put forward at the time of the reform of the Calendar by Gregory XIII, is this, that the Church throughout held that the determination of Easter was primarily a matter of ecclesiastical discipline and not of astronomical science. As Professor De Morgan long ago clearly recognized, the moon according to which Easter is calculated s not the moon in the heavens nor even the mean moon, i.e. a moon traveling with the average motion of the real moon, but simply the moon of the calendar. This calendar moon is admittedly a fiction, though it departs very little from the actual astronomical facts; but in following the simple rule given for the dependence of Easter upon the moon of the calendar, uniformity is secured for all countries of the world. According to this rule, Easter Sunday is the first Sunday which occurs after the first full moon (or more accurately after the first fourteenth day of the moon) following the 21st of March. As a result, the earliest possible date of Easter is 22 March, the latest 25 April.

The bibliography of this subject is vast, and most ecclesiastical encyclopedias devote more or less space to it. For practical purposes the text and notes of HEFELE-LECLERCQ, Conciles, I, 133-151 and 450-488, supply all that is necessary; though LECLERCQ refers to the article Comput paschal in the Dictionnaire d'Archéologie for fuller treatment.

Among the more important contributions to the subject the following may be named: KRUSCH, Studien zur christlichmittelalterlichen Chronologie (Leipzig, 1880); IDEM in Neues Archiv (1884), 101-169; RUHL, Chronologie des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit (Berlin, 1897), 110-165; SCHMID, Die Osterfestfrage auf dem ersten allgemeinen Conzil von Nicaa (Vienna, 1905); IDEM, Die Osterfestberechnung auf den britischen Inseln (Ratisbon, 1904); HILGENFELD, Der Paschastreit der alten Kirche (1860); SCHWARTZ, Christliche und judische Ostertafeln (Berlin, 1905) in the Abhandlungen of the Gottingen academy: this is a work of the very highest importance; SCHURER, Die Passastreitigkeit en des 2. Jahrhunderts in Zeitschrift f. histor. Theol. (1870); DUCHESNE, Hist. Anc. de l'Eglise (Paris, 1906), I, 285-291; KELLNER, Heortologie (1906); DUCHESNE in Revue des Quest. Hist. (1880); ANSCOMBE and TURNER in Eng. Historical Review (1895), 515, 699; WICKLN in Journal of Philology (1901), 137-151. See also the bibliography given under CHRONOLOGY, GENERAL; and DOMINICAL LETTER.

HERBERT THURSTON

Eastern Churches

I. DEFINITION OF AN EASTERN CHURCH

An accident of political development has made it possible to divide the Christian world, in the first place, into two great halves, Eastern and Western. The root of this division is, roughly and broadly speaking, the division of the Roman Empire made first by Diocletian (284-305), and again by the sons of Theodosius I (Arcadius in the East, 395-408; and Honorius in the West, 395-423), then finally made permanent by the establishment of a rival empire in the West (Charlemagne, 800). The division of Eastern and Western Churches, then, in its origin corresponds to that of the empire.

Western Churches are those that either gravitate around Rome or broke away from her at the Reformation. Eastern Churches depend originally on the Eastern Empire at Constantinople; they are those that either find their centre in the patriarchate of that city (since the centralization of the fourth century) or have been formed by schisms which in the first instance concerned Constantinople rather than the Western world.

Another distinction, that can be applied only in the most general and broadest sense, is that of language. Western Christendom till the Reformation was Latin; even now the Protestant bodies still bear unmistakably the mark of their Latin ancestry. It was the great Latin Fathers and Schoolmen, St. Augustine (d. 430) most of all, who built up the traditions of the West; in ritual and canon law the Latin or Roman school formed the West. In a still broader sense the East may be called Greek. True, many Eastern Churches know nothing of Greek; the oldest (Nestorians, Armenians, Abyssinians) have never used Greek liturgically nor for their literature; nevertheless they too depend in some sense on a Greek tradition. Whereas our Latin Fathers have never concerned them at all (most Eastern Christians have never even heard of our schoolmen or canonists), they still feel the influence of the Greek Fathers, their theology is still concerned about controversies carried on originally in Greek and settled by Greek synods. The literature of those that do not use Greek is formed on Greek models, is full of words carefully chosen or composed to correspond to some technical Greek distinction, then, in the broadest terms, is: that a Western Church is one originally dependent on Rome, whose traditions are Latin; an Eastern Church looks rather to Constantinople (either as a friend or an enemy) and inherits Greek ideas.

The point may be stated more scientifically by using the old division of the patriarchates. Originally (e.g. at the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, can. vi) there were three patriarchates, those of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Further legislation formed two more at the expense of Antioch: Constantinople in 381 and Jerusalem in 451. In any case the Roman patriarchate was always enormously the greatest. Western Christendom may be defined quite simply as the Roman patriarchate and all Churches that have broken away from it. All the others, with schismatical bodies formed from them, make up the Eastern half. But it must not be imaged that either half is in any sense one Church. The Latin half was so (in spite of a few unimportant schisms) till the Reformation. To find a time when there was one Eastern Church we must go back to the centuries before the Council of Ephesus (431). Since that council there have been separate schismatical Eastern Churches whose number has grown steadily down to our own time. The Nestorian heresy left a permanent Nestorian Church, the Monophysite and Monothelite quarrels made several more, the reunion with Rome of fractions of every Rite further increased the number, and quite lately the Bulgarian schism has created yet another; indeed it seems as if two more, in Cyprus and Syria, are being formed at the present moment (1908).

We have now a general criterion by which to answer the question: What is an Eastern Church? Looking at a map, we see that, roughly, the division between the Roman patriarchate and the others forms a line that runs down somewhat to the east of the River Vistula (Poland is Latin), then comes back above the Danube, to continue down the Adriatic Sea, and finally divides Africa west of Egypt. Illyricum (Macedonia and Greece) once belonged to the Roman patriarchate, and Greater Greece (Southern Italy and Sicily) was intermittently Byzantine. But both these lands eventually fell back into the branches that surrounded them (except for the thin remnant of the Catholic Italo-Greeks). We may, then, say that any ancient Church east of that line is an Eastern Church. To these we must add those formed by missionaries (especially Russians) from one of these Churches. Later Latin and Protestant missions have further complicated the tangled state of the ecclesiastical East. Their adherents everywhere belong of course to the Western portion.

II. CATALOGUE OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES

It is now possible to draw up the list of bodies that answer to our definition. We have already noted that they are by no means all in communion with each other, nor have they any common basis of language, rite or faith. All are covered by a division into the great Orthodox Church, those formed by the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies (the original Monothelites are now all Eastern-Rite Catholics), and lastly the Catholic Eastern Rites corresponding in each case to a schismatical body. Theologically, to Catholics, the vital distinction is between Eastern Catholic, on the one hand, and schismatics or heretics, on the other. But it is not convenient to start from this basis in cataloguing Eastern Churches. Historically and archeologically, it is a secondary question. Each Catholic body has been formed from one of the schismatical ones; their organizations are comparatively late, dating in most cases from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Moreover, although all these Eastern-Rite Catholics of course agrees in the same Catholic Faith we profess, they are not organized as one body. Each branch keeps the rites (with in some cases modifications made at Rome for dogmatic reasons) of the corresponding schismatical body, and has an organization modelled on the same plan. In faith a Catholic Armenian, for instance, is joined to Catholic Chaldees and Copts, and has no more to do with the schismatical Armenians than with Nestorians or Abyssinians. Nor does he forget this fact. He knows quite well that he is a Catholic in union with the Pope of Rome, and that he is equally in union with every other Catholic. Nevertheless, national customs, languages, and rites tell very strongly on the superficies, and our Catholic Armenian would certainly feel very much more at home in a non-Catholic church of his own nation than in a Coptic Catholic, or even Latin, church. Outwardly, the bond of a common language and common liturgy is often the essential and radical division of a schism. Indeed these Eastern Catholic bodies in many cases still faintly reflect the divisions of their schismatical relations. What in one case is a schism (as for instance between Orthodox and Jacobites) still remains as a not very friendly feeling between the different Eastern Catholic Churches (in this case Melkites and Catholic Syrians). Certainly, such feeling is a very different thing from formal schism, and the leaders of the Eastern Catholic Churches, we well as all their more intelligent members and all their well-wishers, earnestly strive to repress it. Nevertheless, quarrels between various Eastern Catholic bodies fill up too large a portion of Eastern Church history to be ignored; still, to take another instance, anyone who knows Syria knows that the friendship between Melkites and Maronites is not enthusiastic. It will be seen, then, that for purposes of tabulation we cannot conveniently begin by cataloguing the Catholic bodies on the one side and then classing the schismatics together on the other. We must arrange these Churches according to their historical basis and origin: first, the larger and older schismatical Churches; then, side by side with each of these, the corresponding Eastern-Rite Catholic Church formed out of the schismatics in later times.

A. Schismatical Churches

1. Orthodox

The first of the Eastern Churches in size and importance is the great Orthodox Church. This is, after that of the Catholics, considerably the largest body in Christendom. The Orthodox Church now counts about a hundred millions of members. It is the main body of Eastern Christendom, that remained faithful to the decrees of Ephesus and Calcedon when Nestorianism and Monophysitism cut away the national Churches in Syria and Egypt. It remained in union with the West till the great schism of Photius and then that of Caerularius, in the ninth and eleventh centuries. In spite of the short-lived reunions made by the Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439), this Church has been in schism ever since. The "Orthodox" (it is convenient as well as courteous to call them by the name they use as a technical one for themselves) originally comprised the four Eastern patriarchates: Alexandria and Antioch, then Constantinople and Jerusalem. But the balance between these four patriarchates was soon upset. The Church of Cyprus was taken away from Antioch and made autocephalous (i.e., extra-patriarchal) by the Council of Ephesus (431). Then, in the fifth century, came the great upheavals of Nestorianism and Monophysitism, of which the result was that enormous numbers of Syrians and Egyptians fell away into schism. So the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem (this was always a very small and comparatively unimportant centre), and Alexandria, losing most of its subjects, inevitably sank in importance. The Moslem conquest of their lands completed their ruin, so that they became the merest shadows of what their predecessors had once been. Meanwhile Constantinople, honoured by the presence of the emperor, and always sure of his favour, rose rapidly in importance. Itself a new see, neither Apostolic nor primitive (the first Bishop of Byzantium was Metrophanes in 325), it succeeded so well in its ambitious career that for a short time after the great Eastern schism it seemed as if the Patriarch of the New Rome would take the same place over the Orthodox Church as did his rival the Pope of the Old Rome over Catholics. It is also well known that it was this insatiable ambition of Constantinople that was chiefly responsible for the schism of the ninth and eleventh centuries. The Turkish conquest, strangely enough, still further strengthened the power of the Byzantine patriarch, inasmuch as the Turks acknowledged him as the civil head of what they called the "Roman nation" (Rum millet), meaning thereby the whole Orthodox community of whatever patriarchate. For about a century Constantinople enjoyed her power. The other patriarchs were content to be her vassals, many of them even came to spend their useless lives as ornaments of the chief patriarch's court, while Cyprus protested faintly and ineffectually that she was subject to no patriarch. The bishop who had climbed to so high a place by a long course of degrading intrigue could for a little time justify in the Orthodox world his usurped title of Ecumenical Patriarch. Then came his fall; since the sixteenth century he has lost one province after another, till now he too is only a shadow of what he once was, and the real power of the Orthodox body is in the new independent national Churches with their "holy Synods"; while high over all looms the shadow of Russia. The separation of the various national Orthodox Churches from the patriarch of Constantinople forms the only important chapter in the modern history of this body. The principle is always the same. More and more has the idea obtained that political modifications should be followed by the Church, that is to say that the Church of an independent State must be itself independent of the patriarch. This by no means implies real independence for the national Church; on the contrary, in each case the much severer rule of the Government is substituted for the distant authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Outside the Turkish Empire, in Russia and the Balkan States, the Orthodox Churches are shamelessly Erastian -- by far the most Erastian of all Christian bodies. The process began when the great Church of Russia was declared autocephalous by the Czar Feodor Ivanovitch, in 1589. Jeremias II of Constantinople took a bribe to acknowledge its independence. Peter the Great abolished the Russian patriarchate (of Moscow) and set up a "Holy Governing Synod" to rule the national Church in 1721. The Holy Synod is simply a department of the government through which the czar rules over his Church as absolutely as over his army and navy. The independence of Russia and its Holy Synod has since been copied by each Balkan State. But this independence does not mean schism. Its first announcement is naturally very distasteful to the patriarch and his court. He often begins by excommunicating the new national Church root and branch. But in each case he has been obliged to give in finally and to acknowledge one more "Sister in Christ" in the Holy Synod that has displaced his authority. Only in the specially difficult and bitter case of the Bulgarian Church has a permanent schism resulted. Other causes have led to the establishment of a few other independent Churches, so that now the great Orthodox communion consists of sixteen independent Churches, each of which (except that of the Bulgars) is recognized by, and in communion with, the others.

These Churches are

• The Great Church, that is, the patriarchate of Constantinople that takes precedence of the others. It covers Turkey in Europe (except where its jurisdiction is disputed by the Bulgarian Exarch) and Asia Minor. Under the Ecumenical Patriarch are seventy-four metropolitans and twenty other bishops. Outside this territory the Patriarch of Constantinople has no jurisdiction. He still has the position of civil head of the Roman Nation throughout the Turkish Empire, and he still intermittently tries to interpret this as including some sort of ecclesiastical jurisdiction -- he is doing so at this moment in Cyprus -- but in modern times especially each attempt is at once met by the most pronounced opposition on the part of the other patriarchs and national Churches, who answer that they acknowledge no head by Christ, no external authority but the seven Ecumenical Synods. The Ecumenical Patriarch, however, keeps the right of alone consecrating the chrism (myron) and sending it to the other Orthodox Churches, except in the cases of Russia and Rumania, which prepare it themselves. Bulgaria gets hers from Russia, Greece has already mooted the question of consecrating her own myron, and there seems to be no doubt that Antioch will do so too when the present stock is exhausted. So even this shadow of authority is in a precarious state.
• Alexandria (covering all Egypt as far as it is Orthodox) with only four metropolitans.
• Antioch, extending over Syria from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates as far as any Orthodox live so far East, touching the Great Church along the frontier of Asia Minor to the north and Palestine to the south, with twelve metropolitans and two or three titular bishops who form the patriarchal curia.
• Jerusalem, consisting of Palestine, from Haifa to the Egyptian frontier, with thirteen metropolitans.
• Cyprus, the old autocephalous Church, with an archbishop [whose succession (1908), after eight years, rends the whole Orthodox world] and three suffragans. Then come the new national Churches, arranged here according to thedate of their foundation, since they have no precedence.
• Russia (independent since 1589). This is enormously the preponderating partner, about eight times as great as all the others put together. The Holy Synod consists of three metropolitans (Kiev, Moscow, and Petersburg), the Exarch of Georgia, and five or six other bishops or archimandrites appointed at the czar's pleasure. There are eighty-six Russian dioceses, to which must be added missionary bishops in Siberia, Japan, North America, etc.
• Carlovitz (1765), formed of Orthodox Serbs in Hungary, with six suffragan sees.
• Czernagora (1765), with one independent diocese of the Black Mountain.
• The Church of Sinai, consisting of one monastery recognized as independent of Jerusalem in 1782. The hegumenos is an archbishop.
• The Greek Church (1850): thirty-two sees under a Holy Synod on the Russian model.
• Hermannstadt (Nagy-Szeben, 1864), the Church of the Vlachs in Hungary, with three sees.
• The Bulgarian Church under the exarch, who lives at Constantinople. In Bulgaria are eleven sees with a Holy Synod. The exarch, however, claims jurisdiction over all Bulgars everywhere (especially in Macedonia) and has set up rival exarchist metropolitans against the patriarchist ones. The Bulgarian Church is recognized by the Porte and by Russia, but is excommunicate, since 1872, by the Greek Church and is considered schismatical by all Greeks.
• Czernovitz (1873), for the Orthodox in Austria, with four sees.
• Serbia (1879), the national Church of that country, with five bishops and a Holy Synod. The Serbs in Macedonia are now agitating to add two more sees (Uskub and Monastir) to this Church, at the further cost of Constantinople.
• Rumania (1885), again a national Church with a Holy Synod and eight sees.
• Herzegovina and Bosnia, organized since the Austrian occupation (1880) as a practically independent Church with a vague recognition of Constantinople as a sort of titular primacy. It has four sees.

This ends the list of allied bodies that make up the Orthodox Church. Next come, in order of date, the old heretical Eastern Churches.

2. Nestorians

The Nestorians are now only a pitiful remnant of what was once a great Church. Long before the heresy from which they have their name, there was a flourishing Christian community in Chaldea and Mesopotamia. According to their tradition it was founded by Addai and Mari (Addeus and Maris), two of the seventy-two Disciples. The present Nestorians count Mar Mari as the first Bishop of Ctesiphon and predecessor of their patriarch. In any case this community was originally subject to the Patriarch of Antioch. As his vicar, the metropolitan of the twin-cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon (on either side of the Tigris, north-east of Babylon) bore the title of catholicos. One of these metropolitans was present at the Council of Nicaea in 325. The great distance of this Church from Antioch led in early times to a state of semi-independence that prepared the way for the later schism. Already in the fourth century the Patriarch of Antioch waived his right of ordaining the catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and allowed him to be ordained by his own suffragans. In view of the great importance of the right of ordaining, as a sign of jurisdiction throughout the East, this fact is important. But it does not seem that real independence of Antioch was acknowledged or even claimed till after the schism. In the fifth century the influence of the famous Theodore of Mopsuestia and that of his school of Edessa spread the heresy of Nestorius throughout this extreme Eastern Church. Naturally, the later Nestorians deny that their fathers accepted any new doctrine at that time, and they claim that Nestorius learned from them rather than they from him ("Nestorius eos secutus est, non ipsi Nestorium", Ebed-Jesu of Nisibis, about 1300. Assemani, "Bibli. Orient.", III, 1, 355). There may be truth in this. Theodore and his school had certainly prepared the way for Nestorius. In any case the rejection of the Council of Ephesus (431) by these Christians in Chaldea and Mesopotamia produced a schism between them and the rest of Christendom. When Babaeus, himself a Nestorian, became catholicos, in 498, there were practically no more Catholics in those parts. From Ctesiphon the Faith had spread across the frontier into Persia, even before that city was conquered bythe Persian king (244). The Persian Church, then, always depended on Ctesiphon and shared its heresy. From the fifth century this most remote of the Eastern Churches has been cut off from the rest of Christendom, and till modern times was the most separate and forgotten community of all. Shut out from the Roman Empire (Zeno closed the school of Edessa in 489), but, for a time at least, protected by the Persian kings, the Nestorian Church flourished around Ctesiphon, Nisibis (where the school was reorganized), and throughout Persia. Since the schism the catholicos occasionally assumed the title of patriarch. The Church then spread towards the East and sent missionaries to India and even China. A Nestorian inscription of the year 781 has been found at Singan Fu in China (J. Heller, S.J., "Prolegomena zu einer neuen Ausgabe der nestorianischen Inschrift von Singan Fu", in the "Verhandlungen des VII. internationalen Orientalistencongresses", Vienna, 1886, pp. 37 sp.). Its greatest extent was in the eleventh century, when twenty-five metropolitans obeyed the Nestorian patriarch. But since the end of the fourteenth century it has gradually sunk to a very small sect, first, because of a fierce persecution by the Mongols (Timur Leng), and then through internal disputes and schisms. Two great schisms as to the patriarchal succession in the sixteenth century led to a reunion of part of the Nestorian Church with Rome, forming the Catholic Chaldean Church. At present there are about 150,000 Nestorians living chiefly in highlands west of Lake Urumiah. They speak a modern dialect of Syriac. The patriarchate descends from uncle to nephew, or to younger brothers, in the family of Mama; each patriarch bears the name Simon (Mar Shimun) as a title. Ignoring the Second General Council, and of course strongly opposed to the Third (Ephesus), they only acknowledge the First Nicene (325). They have a Creed of their own, formed from an old Antiochene Creed, which does not contain any trace of the particular heresy from which their Church is named. In deed it is difficult to say how far any Nestorians now are conscious of the particular teaching condemned by the Council of Ephesus, though they still honour Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and other undoubted heretics as saints and doctors. The patriarch rules over twelve other bishops (the list in Silbernagl, "Verfassung", p. 267). Their hierarchy consists of the patriarch, metropolitans, bishops, chorepiscopi, archdeacons, priests, deacons, subdeacons, and readers. There are also many monasteries. They use Syriac liturgically written in their own (Nestorian) form of the alphabet. The patriarch, who now generally calls himself "Patriarch of the East", resides at Kochanes, a remote valley of the Kurdish mountains by the Zab, on the frontier between Persia and Turkey. He has an undefined political jurisdiction over his people, though he does not receive a berat from the Sultan. In any ways this most remote Church stands alone; it has kept a number of curious and archaic customs (such as the perpetual abstinence of the patriarch, etc.) that separate it from other Eastern Churches almost as much as from those of the West. Lately the Archbishop of Canterbury's mission to the Nestorians has aroused a certain interest about them in England.

All the other separated Eastern Churches are formed by the other great heresy of the fourth century, Monophysitism. There are first the national Churches of Egypt, Syria, and Armenia.

3. Copts

The Copts form the Church of Egypt. Monophysitism was in a special sense the national religion of Egypt. As an extreme opposition to Nestorianism, the Egyptians believed it to be the faith of their hero St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444). His successor, Dioscurus (444-55), was deposed and excommunicated by the Council of Calcedon (451). From his time the Monophysite party gained ground very quickly among the native population, so that soon it became an expression of their national feeling against the Imperial (Melchite, or Melkite) garrison and government officials. Afterwards, at the Moslem invasion (641), the opposition was so strong that the native Egyptians threw in their lot with the conquerors against the Greeks. The two sides are still represented by the native Monophysites and the Orthodox minority. The Monophysites are sometimes called Jacobites here as in Syria; but the old national name Copt (Gr. Aigyptios) has become the regular one for their Church as well as for their nation. Their patriarch, with the title of Alexandria, succeeds Dioscurus and Timothy the Cat, a fanatical Monophysite. He lives at Cairo, ruling over thirteen dioceses and about 500,000 subjects. For him, too, the law is perpetual abstinence. There are many monasteries. The Copts use their old language liturgically and have in it a number of liturgies all derived from the original Greek rite of Alexandria (St. Mark). But Coptic is a dead language, so much so that even most priests understand very little of it. They all speak Arabic, and their service books give an Arabic version of the text in parallel columns. The Church is, on the whole, in a poor state. The Copts are mostly fellaheen who live by tilling the ground, in a state of great poverty and ignorance. And the clergy share the same conditions. Lately there have been something of a revival among them, and certain rich Coptic merchants of Cairo have begun to found schools and seminaries and generally to promote education and such advantages among their nation. One of these, M. Gabriel Labib, who is editing their service books, promises to be a scholar of some distinction in questions of liturgy and archeology.

4. Abyssinians

The Church of Abyssinia, or Ethiopia, always depended on Egypt. It was founded by St. Frumentius, who was ordained and sent by St. Athanasius in 326. So Abyssinia has always acknowledged the supremacy of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and still considers its Church as a daughter-church of the See of St. Mark. The same causes that made Egypt Monophysite affected Abyssinia equally. She naturally, almost inevitably, shared the schism ofthe mother Church. So Abyssinia is still Monophysite, and acknowledges the Coptic patriarch as her head. There is now only one bishop of Abyssinia (there were once two) who is called Abuna (Our Father) and resides at Adeva (the old see of Axum). He is always a Coptic monk consecrated and sent by the Coptic patriarch. It does not seem, however, that there is now much communication between Cairo and Adeva, though the patriarch still has the right of deposing the Abuna. Abyssinia has about three million inhabitants, nearly all members of the national Church. There are many monks and an enormous number of priests, whom the Abuna ordains practically without any previous preparation or examination. The Abyssinians have liturgies, again, derived from those of Alexandria in the old (classical) form of their language. The Abyssinian Church, being the religion of more than half barbarous people, cut off by the schism from relations with any other Christian body except the poor and backward Copts, is certainly the lowest representative of the great Christian family. The people have gradually mixed up Christianity with a number of pagan and magical elements, and are specially noted for strong Jewish tendencies (they circumcise and have on their altars a sort of Ark of the Covenant containing the Ten Commandments). Lately Russia has developed an interest in the Abyssinians and has begun to undertake schemes for educating them, and, of course, at the same time, converting them to Orthodoxy.

5. Jacobites

The Jacobites are the Monophysites of Syria. Here, too, chiefly out of political opposition to the imperial court, Monophysitism spread quickly among the native population, and here, too, there was the same opposition between the Syrian Monophysites in the country and the Greek Melkites in the cities. Severus of Antioch (512-18) was an ardent Monophysite. After his death the Emperor Justinian (527-65) tried to cut off the succession by having all bishops suspect of heresy locked up in monasteries. But his wife Theodora was herself a Monophysite; he arranged the ordination of two monks of that party, Theodore and James. It was from this James, called Zanzalos and Baradaï (Jacob Baradaeus), that they have their name (Ia'qobaie, "Jacobite"); it is sometimes used for any Monophysite anywhere, but had better be kept for the national Syrian Church. James found two Coptic bishops, who with him ordained a whole hierarchy, including one Sergius of Tella as Patriarch of Antioch. From this Sergius the Jacobite patriarchs descend. Historically, the Jacobites of Syria are the national Church of their country, as much as the Copts in Egypt; but they by no means form so exclusively the religion of the native population. Syria never held together, was never so compact a unity as Egypt. We have seen that the Eastern Syrians expressed their national, anti-Imperial feeling by adopting the extreme opposite heresy, Nestorianism, which, however, had the same advantage of not being the religion of Caesar and his court. Among the Western Syrians, too, there has always been a lack of cohesion. They had in Monophysite times two patriarchates (Antioch and Jerusalem) instead of one. In all quarrels, whether political or theological, whereas the Copts move like one man for the cause of Egypt and the "Christian Pharaoh", the Syrians are divided amongst themselves. So there have always been manymore Melkites in Syria, and the Jacobites were never an overwhelming majority. Now they are a small minority (about 80,000) dwelling in Syria, Mesopotamia, Kurdistan. Their head is the Jacobite Patriarch of "Antioch and all the East". He always takes the name Ignatius and dwells either at Diarbekir or Mardin in Mesopotamia. Under him, as first of the metropolitans, is the Maphrian, a prelate who was originally set up to rule the Eastern Jacobites as a rival of the Nestorian catholicos. Originally the maphrian had a number of special rights and privileges that made him almost independent of his patriarch. Now he has only precedence of other metropolitans, a few rights in connection with the patriarch's election and consecration (when the patriarch dies he is generally succeeded by the maphrian) and the title "Maphrian and Catholicos of the East". Besides these two, the Jacobites have seven metropolitans and three other bishops. As in all Eastern Churches, there are many monks, from whom the bishops are always taken. The Syrian Jacobites are in communion with the Copts. They name the Coptic patriarch in the Liturgy, and the rule is that each Syrian patriarch should send an official letter to his brother of Alexandria to announce his succession. This implies a recognition of superior rank which is consistent with the old precedence of Alexandria over Antioch. At Mardin still linger the remains of an old pagan community of Sun-worshippers who in 1762 (when the Turks finally decided to apply to them, too, the extermination that the Koran prescribes for pagans) preferred to hide under the outward appearance of Jacobite Christianity. They were, therefore, all nominally converted, and they conform the laws of the Jacobite Church, baptize, fast, receive all sacraments and Christian burial. But they only marry among themselves and every one knows that they still practise their old pagan rites in secret. There are about one hundred families of these people, still called Shamsiyeh (people of the Sun).

6. Malabar Christians

The Malabar Christians in India have had the strangest history of all these Eastern Churches. For, having been Nestorians, they have now veered round to the other extreme and have become Monophysites. We hear of Christian communities along the Malabar coast (in Southern India from Goa to Cape Comorin) as early as the sixth century. They claim the Apostle of St. Thomas as their founder (hence their name "Thomas Christians", or "Christians of St. Thomas"). In the first period they depended on the Catholicos of Selecuia-Ctesiphon, and were Nestorians like him. They are really one of the many missionary Churches founded by the Nestorians in Asia. In the sixteenth century the Portuguese succeeded in converting a part of this Church to reunion in Rome. A further schism among these Eastern Catholics led to a complicated situation, of which the Jacobite patriarch took advantage by sending a bishop to form a Jacobite Malabar Church. There were then three parties among them: Nestorians, Jacobites, and Catholics. The line of Nestorian metropolitans died out (it has been revived lately) and nearly all the non-Catholic Thomas Christians may be counted as Monophysites since the eighteenth century. But the Jacobite patriarch seems to have forgotten them, so that after 1751 they chose their own hierarchy and were an independent Church. In the nineteenth century, after they had been practically rediscovered by the English, the Jacobites in Syria tried to reassert authority over Malabar by sending out a metropolitan named Athanasius. Athanasius made a considerable disturbance, excommunicated the hierarchy he found, and tried to reorganize this Church in communion with the Syrian patriarch. But the Rajah of Travancore took the side of the national Church and forced Athanasius to leave the county. Since then the Thomas Christians have been a quite independent Church whose communion with the Jacobites of Syria is at most only theoretic. There are about 70,000 of them under a metropolitan who calls himself "Bishop and Gate of all India". He is always named by his predecessor, i.e. each metropolitan chooses a coadjutor with the right of succession. The Thomas Christians use Syriac liturgically and describe themselves generally as "Syrians".

7. Armenians

The Armenian Church is the last and the most important of these Monophysite bodies. Although it agrees in faith with the Copts and Jacobites, it is not communion with them (a union arranged by a synod in 726 came to nothing) nor with any other Church in the world. This is a national Church in the strictest sense of all: except for the large Armenian Catholic body that forms the usual pendant, and for a very small number of Protestants, every Armenian belongs to it, and it has no members who are not Armenians. So in this case the name of the national and of the religion are really the same. Only, since there are the Eastern Catholics, it is necessary to distinguish whether an Armenian belongs to them or to the schismatical (Monophysite) Church. Because of this distinction it is usual to call the others Gregorian Armenians -- after St. Gregory the Illuminator -- another polite concession of form on our part akin to that of "Orthodox" etc. Quite lately the Gregorian Armenians have begun to call themselves Orthodox. This has no meaning and only confuses the issue. Of course each Church thinks itself really Orthodox, and Catholic and Apostolic and Holy too. But one must keep technical names clear, or we shall always talk at cross purposes. The polite convention throughout the Levant is that we are Catholics, that people in communion with the "Ecumenical Patriarch" are Orthodox, and that Monophysite Armenians are Gregorian. They should be content with that is an honourable title to which we and the Orthodox do not of course think that they have really any right. They have no real right to it, because the Apostle of Armenia, St. Gregory the Illuminator (295), was no Monophysite, but a Catholic in union with Rome. The Armenian Church was in the first period subject to the Metropolitan of Caesarea; he ordained its bishops. It suffered persecution from the Persians and was an honoured branch of the great Catholic Church till the sixth century. Then Monophysitism spread through Armenia from Syria, and in 527 the Armenian primate, Nerses, in the Synod of Duin, formally rejected the Council of Calcedon. The schism was quite manifest in 552, when the primate, Abraham I, excommunicated the Church of Georgia and all others who accepted the decrees of Chalcedon. From that time the national Armenian Church has been isolated from the rest of Christendom; the continual attempts at reunion made by Catholic missionaries, however, have established a considerable body of Armenian Catholics. The Armenians are a prolific and widespread race. They are found not only in Armenia, but scattered all over the Levant and in many cities of Europe and America. As they always bring their Church with them, it is a large and important community, second only to the Orthodox in size among Eastern Churches. There are about three millions of Gregorian Armenians. Among their bishops four have the title of patriarch. The first is the Patriarch of Etchmiadzin, who bears as a special title that of catholicos. Etchmiadzin is a monastery in the province of Erivan, between the Black and the Caspian Seas, near Mount Ararat (since 1828 Russian territory). It is the cradle of the race and their chief sanctuary. The catholicos is the head of the Armenia Church and to a great extent of his nation too. Before the Russian occupation of Erivan he had unlimited jurisdiction over all Georgian Armenians and was something very like an Armenian pope. But since he sits under the shadow of Russia, and especially since the Russian Government has begun to interfere in his election and administration, the Armenians of Turkey have made themselves nearly independent of him. The second rank belongs to the Patriarch of Constantinople.They have had a bishop at Constantinople since 1307. In 1461 Mohammed II gave this bishop the title of Patriarch of the Armenians, so as to rivet their loyalty to his capital and to form a millet (nation) on the same footing as the Rum millet (the Orthodox Church). This patriarch is the person responsible to the Porte for his race, has the same privileges as his Orthodox rival, and now uses the jurisdiction over all Turkish Armeniansthat formerly belonged to the catholicos. Under him, and little more than titular patriarchs, are those of Sis in Cilicia (a title kept after a temporary schism in 1440 and Jerusalem (whose title was assumed illegally in the eighteenth century). The Armenians have seven dioceses in the Russian Empire, two in Persia, and thirty-five in Turkey. They distinguish archbishops from bishops by an honorary precedence only and have an upper class of priests called Vartapeds, who are celibate and provide all the higher offices (bishops are always taken from their ranks). There are, of course, as in all Eastern Churches, many monks. In many ways the Armenian (Gregorian) Church has been influenced by Rome, so that they are among Eastern schismatical bodies the only one that can be described as at all latinized. Examples of such influence are their use of unleavened bread for the Holy Eurcharist, their vestments (the mitre is almost exactly the Roman one), etc. This appears to be the result of opposition to their nearer rivals, the Orthodox. In any case, at present the Armenians are probably nearer to the Catholic Church and better disposed for reunion than any other of these communions. Their Monophysitism is now very vague and shadowy -- as indeed is the case with most Monophysite Churches. It is from them that the greatest proportion of Eastern-Rite Catholics have been converted.

This brings us to the end of the Monophysite bodies and so to the end of all schismatical Eastern Churches. A further schism was indeed caused by the Monothelite heresy in the seventh century, but the whole of the Church then formed (the Maronite Church) has been for many centuries reunited with Rome. So Maronites have their place only among the Eastern Catholics.

B. Eastern Catholic Churches

The definition of an Eastern-Rite Catholic is: A Christian of any Eastern rite in union with the pope: i.e. a Catholic who belongs not to the Roman, but to an Eastern rite. They differ from other Eastern Christians in that they are in communion with Rome, and from Latins in that they have other rites.

A curious, but entirely theoretic, question of terminology is: Are Milanese and Mozarabic considered Eastern Rite Catholics? If we make rite our basis, they are. That is, they are f Catholics who do not belong to the Roman Rite. The point has sometimes been urged rather as a catch than seriously. As a matter of fact, the real basis, though it is superficially less obvious than rite, is patriarchate. Eastern-Rite Catholics are Catholics who do not belong to the Roman patriarchate. So these two remnants of other rites in the West do not constitute Eastern-Rite Churches. In the West, rite does not always follow patriarchate; the great Gallican Church, with her own rite, was always part of the Roman patriarchate; so are Milan and Toledo. This, however, raises a new difficulty; for it may be urged that in that case the Italo-Greeks are not Eastern Catholics, since they certainly belong to the Roman patriarchate. They do, of course; and they always have done so legally. But the constitution of these Italo-Greek Churches was originally the result of an attempt on the part of the Eastern emperors (Leo III, 717-741, especially; see "Orth. Eastern Church", 45-47) to filch them from the Roman patriarchate and join them to that of Constantinople. Although the attempt did not succeed, the descendants of the Greeks in Calabria, Sicily, etc., have kept the Byzantine Rite. They are an exception to the rule, invariable in the East, that rite follows patriarchate, and are an exception to the general principle about Eastern Rites too. As they have no diocesan bishops of their own, on this ground it may well be denied that they form a Church. An Italo-Greek may best be defined as a member of the Roman patriarchate in Italy, Sicily, or Corsica, who, as a memory of older arrangements, is still allowed to use the Byzantine Rite. With regard to the fundamental distinction of patriarchate, it must be noted that it is no longer purely geographical. A Latin in the East belongs to the Roman patriarch as much as if he lived in the West; Latin missionaries everywhere and the newer dioceses in Australia and American count as part of what was once the patriarchate of Western Europe. So also the Melkites in Leghorn, Marseilles, and Paris belong to the Byzantine Catholic patriarchate, though, as foreigners, they are temporarily subject to Latin bishops.

A short enumeration and description of the Catholic Eastern Rites will complete this picture of the Eastern Churches. It is, in the first place, a mistake (encouraged by Eastern schismatics and Anglicans) to look upon these Catholic Eastern Rites as asort of compromise between Latin and other rites, or between Catholics and schismatics. Nor is it true that they are Catholics to whom grudging leave has been given to keep something of their national customs. Their position is quite simple and quite logical. They represent exactly the state of the Eastern Churches before the schisms. They are entirely and uncompromisingly Catholics in our strictest sense of the word, quite as much as Latins. They accept the whole Catholic Faith and the authority of the pope as visible head of the Catholic Church, as did St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom. They do not belong to the pope's patriarchate, nor do they use his rite, any more than did the great saints of Eastern Christendom. They have their own rites and their own patriarchs, as had their fathers before the schism. Nor is there any idea of compromise or concession about this. The Catholic Church has never been identified with the Western patriarchate. The pope's position as patriarch of the West is as distinct from his papal rights as is his authority as local Bishop of Rome. It is no more necessary to belong to his patriarchate in order to acknowledge his supreme jurisdiction that it is necessary to have him for diocesan bishop. The Eastern Catholic Churches in union with the West have always been as much the ideal of the Church Universal as the Latin Church. If some of those Eastern Churches fall into schism, that is a misfortune which does not affect the others who remain faithful. If all fall away, the Eastern half of the Church disappears for a time as an actual fact; it remains as a theory and an ideal to be realized again as soon as they, or some of them, come back to union with Rome.

This is what has happened. There is at any rate no certain evidence of continuity from time before the schism in any of these Eastern Catholic Churches. Through the bad time, from the various schisms to the sixteenth and seventh centuries, there are traces, isolated cases, of bishops who have at least wished for reunion with the West; but it cannot be claimed that any considerable body of Eastern Christians have kept the union throughout. The Maronites think they have, but they are mistaken; the only real case is that of the Italo-Greeks (who have never been schismatic). Really the Eastern Catholic Churches were formed by Catholic missionaries since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. And as soon as any number of Eastern Christians were persuaded to reunite with the West, the situation that had existed before the schisms became an actual one again. They became Catholics; no one thought of asking them to become Latins. They were given bishops and patriarchs of their own as successors of the old Catholic Eastern bishops before the schism, and they became what all Eastern Christians had once been -- Catholics. That the Eastern Catholics are comparatively small bodies is the unfortunate result of the fact that the majority of their countrymen prefer schism. Our missionaries would willingly make them larger ones. But, juridically, they stand exactly where all the East once stood, before the Greek schism, or during the short-lived union of Florence (1439-53). And they have as much right to exist and be respected as have Latins, or the great Catholic bishops in the East had during the first centuries. The idea of latinizing all Eastern Catholics, sometimes defended by people on our side whose zeal for uniformity is greater than their knowledge of the historical and juridical situation, is diametrically opposed to antiquity, to the Catholic system of ecclesiastical organization, and to the policy of all popes. Nor has it any hope of success. The East may become Catholic again; it will never be what it never has been -- Latin.

1. Byzantine Catholics

1. The Byzantine Catholics are those who correspond to the Orthodox. They all use the same (Byzantine) Rite; but they are not all organized as one body. They form seven groups:

• the Melkites in Syria and Egypt (about 110,000), under a Patriarch of Antioch who administers, and bears the titles of, Alexandria and Jerusalem too. They have eleven dioceses and use Arabic liturgically with fragments Greek, though any of their priests may (and some do) celebrate entirely in Greek. The old name "Melkite", which meant originally one who accepted the decrees of Chalcedon (and the imperial laws), as against the Jacobites and Copts, is now used only for these Catholics.
• There are a few hundred Catholics of this Rite in Greece and Turkey in Europe. They use Greek liturgically and depend on Latin delegates at Constantinople and Athens.
• One Georgian congregation of Constantinople (last remnant of the old Georgian Church destroyed by Russia), who use their own language and obey the Latin Delegate.
• The Ruthenians, of whom there are nearly four millions in Austria-Hungary and hidden still in corners of Russia. They use Old Slavonic.
• The Bulgarian Catholics (about 13,000), under two vicars Apostolic, who also use old Slavonic.
• Rumanian Catholics (about a million and a half) in Rumania, but chiefly in Transylvania. They have bishops and use their own language in the liturgy.
• The Italo-Greeks (about 50,000), a remnant of the old Church of Greater Greece. They are scattered about Calabria and Sicily, have a famous monastery near Rome (Grotta-ferrata) and colonies at Leghorn, Malta, Algiers, Marseilles, and Corsica, besides a church (St-Julien le Pauvre) at Paris. They use Greek liturgically but, living as they do surrounded by Latins, they have considerably latinized their rites.

This completes the list of Byzantine Catholics, of whom it may be said that the chief want is organization among themselves. There has often been talk of restoring a Catholic (Melkite) Patriarch of Constantinople. It was said that Pope Leo XIII intended to arrange this before he died. If such a revival ever is made, the patriarch would have jurisdiction, or at least a primacy, over all Catholics of his Rite; in this way the scattered unities of Melkites in Syria, Ruthenians in Hungary, Italo-Greeks in Sicily, and so on, would be linked together as are all other Eastern Catholic Churches.

2. Chaldean Catholics

The Chaldees are Eastern Catholics converted from Nestorianism. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries a complicated series of quarrels and schisms among the Nestorians led to not very stable unions of first one and then another party with the Holy See. Since that time there has always been a Catholic patriarch of the Chaldees, though several times the person so appointed fell away into schism again and had to be replaced by another. The Chaldees are said now to number about 70,000 souls (Silbernagl, op. cit., 354; but Werner, "Orbis Terr. Cath.", 166, gives the number as 33,000). Their primate lives at Mosul, having the title of Patriarch of Babylon. Under him are two archbishoprics and ten other sees. There are monasteries whose arrangements are very similar to those of the Nestorians. The liturgical books (in Syriac, slightly revised from the Nestorian ones) are printed by the Dominicans at Mosul. Most of their canon law depends on the Bull of Pius IX, "Reversurus" (12 July, 1867), published for the Armenians and extended to the Chaldees by another Bull, "Cum ecclesiastica" (31 Aug., 1869). They have some students at the Propaganda College in Rome.

3. Alexandrian Catholics

The Alexandrian Catholics (Catholic Copts) have had a vicar Apostolic since 1781. Before that (in 1442 and again in 1713) the Coptic patriarch had submitted to Rome, but in neither case was the union of long duration. As the number of Catholics of this Rite has increased very considerably of late years, Leo XIII in 1895 restore the Catholic patriarchate. The patriarch lives at Cairo and rules over about 20,000 Catholic Copts.

4. Abyssinians

The Abyssinians, too, had many relations with Rome in past times, and Latin missionaries built up a considerable Catholic Abyssinian Church. But repeated persecutions and banishment of Catholics prevented this community from becoming a permanent one with a regular hierarchy. Now that the Government is tolerant, some thousands of Abyssinians are Catholics. They have an Apostolic vicar at Keren. If their numbers increase, no doubt they will in time be organized under a Catholic Abuna who should depend on the Catholic Coptic patriarch. Their liturgy, too, is at present in a state of disorganization. It seems that the Monophysite Abyssinian books will need a good deal of revision before they can be used by Catholics. Meanwhile the priests ordained for this rite have a translation of the Roman Mass in their own language, an arrangement that is not meant to be more than a temporary expedient.

5. Syrians

The Catholic Syrian Church dates from 1781. At that time a number of Jacobite bishops, priests, and lay people, who had agreed to reunion with Rome, elected one Ignatius Giarve to succeed the dead Jacobite patriarch, George III. Giarve sent to Rome asking for recognition and a pallium, and submitting in all things to the pope's authority. But he was then deposed by those of his people who clung to Jacobitism, and a Jacobite patriarch was elected. From this time there have been two rival successions. In 1830 the Catholic Syrians were acknowledged by the Turkish Government as a separate millet. The Catholic patriarch lives at Beirut, most of his flock in Mesopotamia. Under him are three archbishops and six other bishops, five monasteries, and about 25,000 families.

6. Uniat Church of Malabar

There is also a Catholic Church of Malabar formed by the Synod of Diamper in 1599. This Church, too, has passed through stormy periods; quite lately, since the Vatican Council, a new schism has been formed form it of about 30,000 people who are in communion with neither the Catholics, nor the Jacobites, nor the Nestorians, nor any one else at all. There are now about 200,000 Malabar Catholics under three vicars Apostolic (at Trichur, Changanacherry, and Ernaculam).

7. Armenians

The Catholic Armenians are an important body numbering altogether about 130,000 souls. Like their Gregorian countrymen they are scattered about the Levant, and they have congregations in Austria and Italy. There have been several more or less temporary reunions of the Armenian Church since the fourteenth century, but in each case a rival Gregorian party set up rival patriarchs and bishops. The head of the Catholic Armenians is the Catholic Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople (since 1830), in whom is joined the patriarchate of Cilicia. He always takes the name Peter, and rules over three titular archbishops and fourteen sees, of which one is Alexandria and one Ispahan in Persia (Werner-- Silbernagl, 346). After much dispute he is now recognized by the Porte as the head of a separate millet, and he also represents before the Government all other Catholic bodies that have as yet no political organization. There are also many Catholic Armenians in Austria-Hungary who are subject in Transylvania to the Latin bishops, but in Galicia to the Armenian Archbishop of Lemberg. In Russia there is an Armenian Catholic See of Artvin immediately subject to the pope. The Mechitarists (Founded by Mechitar of Sebaste in 1711) are an important element of Armenian Catholicism. They are monks who follow the Rule of St. Benedict and have monasteries at San Lazzaro outside Venice, at Vienna, and in many towns in the Balkans, Armenia, and Russia. They have missions all over the Levant, schools, and presses that produce important liturgical, historical, historical, and theological works. Since 1869 all Armenian Catholic priests must be celibate.

8. Maronites

Lastly, the Maronite Church is entirely Catholic. There is much dispute as to its origin and the reason of its separation from the Syrian national Church. It is certain that it was formed around monasteries in the Lebanon founded by a certain John Maro in the fourth century. In spite of the indignant protests of all Maronites there is no doubt that they were separated from the old See of Antioch by the fact that they were Monothelites. They were reunited to the Roman Church in the twelfth century, and then (after a period of wavering) since 1216, when their patriarch, Jeremias II, made his definite submission, they have been unswervingly faithful, alone among all Eastern Churches. As in other cases, the Maronites, too, are allowed to keep their old organization and titles. Their head is the Maronite "Patriarch of Antioch and all the East", successor to Monothelite rivals of the old line, who, therefore, in no way represents the original patriarchate. He is also the civil head of his nation, although he has no berat from the sultan, and lives in a large palace at Bkerki in the Lebanon. He has under him nine sees and several titular bishops. There are many monasteries and convents. The present law of the Maronite Church was drawn up by the great national council held in 1736 at the monastery of Our Lady of the Almond Trees (Deir Saïdat al-Luaize), in the Lebanon. There are about 300,000 Maronites in the Lebanon and scattered along the Syrian coast. They also have colonies in Egypt and Cyprus, and numbers of them have lately begun to emigrate to America. They have a national college at Rome.

Conclusion

This completes the list of all the Eastern Churches, whether schismatic or Catholic.

In considering their general characteristics we must first of all again separate the Eastern Catholics from the others. Eastern Rite Catholics are true Catholics, and have as much right to be so treated as Latins. As far as faith and morals go they must be numbered with us; as far as the idea of an Eastern Church may now seem to connote schism or a state of opposition to the Holy See, they repudiate it as strongly as we do. Nevertheless, their position is very important as being the result of relations between Rome and the East, and as showing the terms on which reunion between East and West is possible.

III. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SCHISMATICAL EASTERN CHURCHES

Although these Churches have no communion among themselves, and although many of them are bitterly opposed to the others, there are certain broad lines in which they may be classed together and contrasted with the West.

National Feeling

The first of these is their national feeling. In all these groups the Church is the nation; the vehement and often intolerant ardour of what seems to be their religious conviction is always really national pride and national loyalty under the guise of theology. This strong national feeling is the natural result of their political circumstances. For centuries, since the first ages, various nations have lived side by side and have carried on bitter opposition against each other in the Levant. Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Balkans have never had one homogeneous population speaking one language. From the beginning, nationality in these parts has been a question not of the soil, but of a community held together by its language, striving for supremacy with other communities. The Roman contest accentuated this. Rome and then Constantinople was always a foreign tyranny to Syrians and Egyptians. And already in the fourth century of the Christian Era they began to accentuate their own nationalism, crushed in politics, by taking up an anti-imperial form of religion, by which they could express their hatred for the Government. Such an attitude has characterized these nations ever since. Under the Turk, too, the only possible separate organization was and is an ecclesiastical one. The Turk even increased the confusion. He found a simple and convenient way of organizing the subject Christians by taking their religion as a basis. So the Porte recognizes each sect as an artificial nation (millet). The Orthodox Church became the "Roman nation" (Rum millet), inheriting the name of the old Empire. Then there were the "Armenian nation" (Ermeni millet), the "Coptic nation", and so on. Blood has nothing to do with it. Any subject of the Porte who joins the Orthodox Church becomes a Roman and is submitted politically to the ecumenical patriarch; a Jew who is converted by Armenians becomes an Armenian. True, the latest development of Turkish politics has modified this artificial system, and there have been during the nineteenthcentury repeated attempts to set up one great Ottoman nation. But the effect of centuries is too deeply rooted, and the opposition between Islam and Christianity too great, to make this possible. A Moslem in Turkey -- whether Turk, Arab, or negro -- is simply a Moslem, and a Christian is a Roman, or Armenian, or Maronite, etc. Our Western idea of separating politics from religion, of being on the one hand loyal citizens of our country and on the other, as a quite distinct thing, members of some Church, is unknown in the East. The millet is what matters; and the millet is a religious body. So obvious does this identification seem to them that till quite lately they applied it to us. A Catholic was (and still is to the more remote and ignorant people) a "French Christian", a Protestant an "English Christian"; in speaking French or Italian, Levantines constantly use the word nation for religion. Hence it is, also, that there are practically no conversions from one religion to another. Theology, dogma, or any kind of religious conviction counts for little or nothing. A man keeps to his millet and hotly defends it, as we do to our fatherlands; for a Jacobite to turn Orthodox would be like a Frenchman turning German.

We have noted that religious conviction counts for little. It is hard to say how much say of these bodies (Nestorian or Monophysite) are now even conscious of what was once the cardinal issue of their schism. The bishops and more educated clergy have no doubt a general and hazy idea of the question -- Nestorians think that everyone else denies Christ's real manhood, Monophysites that all their opponents "divide Christ". But what stirs their enthusiasm is not the metaphysical problem; it is the conviction that what they believe is the faith of their fathers, the heroes of their "nation" who were persecuted by the other millets, as they are day-to-day (for there everyone thinks that everyone else persecutes his religion). Opposed to all these little milal (plural of millet) there looms, each decade mightier and more dangerous, the West, Europe Frengistan (of which the United States, of course, forms part to them). Their lands are overrun with Frengis; Frengi schools tempt their young men, and Frengi churches, with eloquent sermons and attractive services, their women. They frequent the schools assiduously; for the Levantine has discovered that arithmetic, French, and physical science are useful helps to earning a good living. But to accept the Frengi religion means treason to their nation. It is a matter of course to them that we are Catholics or Protestants, those are our milal; but an Armenian, a Copt, a Nestorian does not become a Frengi. Against this barrier argument, quotation of Scripture, texts of Fathers, accounts of Church history, break in vain. Your opponent listens, is perhaps even mildly interested, and then goes about his business as before. Frengis are very clever and learned; but of course he is an Armenia, or whatever it may be. Sometimes whole bodies move (as Nestorian dioceses have lately begun to coquet with Russian Orthodoxy), and then every member moves too. One cleaves to one's millet whatever it does. Certainly, if the heads of any body can be persuaded to accept reunion with Rome, the rank and file will make no difficulty, unless there be another party strong enough to proclaim that those heads have deserted the nation.

Intense Conservatism

The second characteristic, a corollary of the first, is the intense conservatism of all these bodies. They cling fanatically to their rites, even to the smallest custom -- because it is by these that the millet is held together. Liturgical language is the burning question in the Balkans. They are all Orthodox, but inside the Orthodox Church, there are various milal -- Bulgars, Vlachs, Serbs, Greeks, whose bond of union is the language used in church. So one understands the uproar made in Macedonia about language in the liturgy; the revolution among the Serbs of Uskub in 1896, when their new metropolitan celebrated in Greek (Orth. Eastern Church, 326); the ludicrous scandal at Monastir, in Macedonia, when they fought over a dead man's body and set the whole town ablaze because some wanted him to be buried in Greek and some in Rumanian (op. cit., 333). The great and disastrous Bulgarian schism, the schism at Antioch, are simply questionsof the nationality of the clergy and the language they use.

Conclusion

It follows then that the great difficulty in the way of reunion is this question of nationality. Theology counts for very little. Creeds and arguments, even when people seem to make much of them, are really only shibboleths, convenient expressions of what they really care about -- their nation. The question of nature and person in Christ, the Filioque in the Creed, azyme bread, and so on do not really stir the heart of the Eastern Christian. But he will not become a Frengi. Hence the importance of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Once for all these people will never become Latins, nor is there any reason why they should. The wisdom of the Holy See has always been to restore union, to insist on the Catholic Faith, and for the rest to leave each millet alone with its own native hierarchy, its own language, its own rites. When this is done we have an Eastern Catholic Church.

IV. ROME AND THE EASTERN CHURCHES

Early attempts at reunion

The attempts at reunion date from after the schism of Michael Caerularius (1054). Before that Rome was little concerned about the older Nestorian and Monophysite schisms. The conversion of these people might well be left to their neighbours, the Catholics of the Eastern Empire. Naturally, in those days the Greeks set about this conversion in the most disastrous way conceivable. It was the Government of Constantinople that tried to convert them back along the most impossible line, by destroying their nationality and centralizing them under the patriarch of the imperial city. And the means used were, frankly and crudely, persecution. Monophysite conventicles were broken up by imperial soldiers, Monophysite bishops banished or executed. Of course this confirmed their hatred of Caesar and Caesar's religion. The East, before as well as after the great schism, did nothing towards pacifying the schismatics at its gates. Only quite lately has Russia taken a more reasonable and conciliatory attitude towards Nestorians in Persia and Abyssinians, who are outside her political power. Her attitude towards people she can persecute may be seen in her abominable treatment of the Armenians in Russia.

Councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1438)

It was, in the first instance, with the Orthodox that Rome treated with a view to reunion. The Second Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-39) were the first efforts on a large scale. And at Florence were at least some representatives of all the other Eastern Churches; as a kind of supplement to the great affair of the Orthodox, reunion with them was considered too. None of these reunions were stable. Nevertheless they were, and they remain, important facts. They (the union of Florence especially) were preceded by elaborate discussions in which the attitudes of East and West, Orthodox and Catholic, were clearly compared. Every question was examined -- the primacy, the Filioque, azyme bread, purgatory, celibacy, etc.

The Council of Florence has not been forgotten in the East. It showed Eastern Christians what the conditions of reunion are, and it has left them always conscious that reunion is possible and is greatly desired by Rome. And on the other hand it remains always as an invaluable precedent for the Roman Court. The attitude of the Holy See at Florence was the only right one: to be quite unswerving in the question of faith and to concede everything else that possibly can be conceded. There is no need of uniformity in rites or in canon law; as long as practices are not absolutely bad and immoral, each Church may work out its own development along its own lines. Customs that would not suit the West may suit the East very well; and we have no right to quarrel with such customs as long as they are not forced upon us.

So, at Florence, in all these matters there was no attempt at changing the old order. Each Church was to keep its own liturgy and its own canon law as far as that was not incompatible with the Roman primacy, which is de fide. The very decree that proclaimed the primacy added the clause, that the pope guides and rules the whole Church of God "without prejudice to the rights and privileges of the other patriarchs". And the East was to keep its married clergy and its leavened bread, was not to say the Filioque in the Creed, nor use solid statues, nor do any of the things they resent as being Latin.

After the Council of Florence

This has been the attitude of Rome ever since. Many popes have published decrees, Encyclicals, Bulls that show that they have never forgotten the venerable and ancient Churches cut off from us by these schisms; in all these documents consistently the tone and attitude are the same. If there has been any latinizing movement among Eastern Catholics, it has sprung up among themselves; they have occasionally been disposed to copy practices of the far richer and mightier Latin Church with which they are united. But all the Roman documents point the other way.

If any Eastern customs have been discouraged or forbidden, it is because they were obviously abuses and immoral like the quasi-hereditary patriarchate of the Nestorians, or sheer paganism like the superstitions forbidden by the Maronite Synod of 1736. True, their liturgical books have been altered in places; true also that in the past these corrections were made sometimes by well-meaning officials of Propaganda whose liturgical knowledge was not equal to their pious zeal. But in this case, too, the criterion was not conformity with the Roman Rite, but purification from supposed (sometimes mistakenly supposed) false doctrine. That the Maronite Rite is so latinized is due to its own clergy. It was the Maronites themselves who insisted on using our vestments, our azyme bread, our Communion under one kind, till these things had to be recognized, because they were already ancient customs to them prescribed by the use of generations.

Papal Documents

A short survey of papal documents relating to the Eastern Churches will make these points clear.

Before Pius IX, the most important of these documents was Benedict XIV's Encyclical "Allatae sunt" of 2 July, 1755. In it the pope is able to quote a long list of his predecessors who had already cared for the Eastern Churches and their rites. He mentions acts of Innocent III (1198-1216), Honorius III (1216-27), Innocent IV (1243-54), Alexander IV (1254-61), Gregory X (1271-76), Nicholas III (1277-80), Eugene IV (1431-47), Leo X (1513-21), Clement VII (1523-34), Pius IV (1559-65), all to this effect.

Gregory XIII (1572-85) founded at Rome colleges for Greeks, Maronites, Armenians. In 1602 Clement VIII published a decree allowing Ruthenian priests to celebrate their rite in Latin churches. In 1624 Urban VIII forbade Ruthenians to become Latins. Clement IX, in 1669, published the same order for Armenian Catholics (Allatae sunt, I). Benedict XIV not only quotes these examples of former popes, he confirms the same principle by new laws. In 1742 he had re-established the Ruthenian Church with the Byzantine Rite after the national Council of Zamosc, confirming again the laws of Clement VIII in 1595. When the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch wanted to change the use of the Presanctified Liturgy in his Rite, Benedict XIV answered: "The ancient rubrics of the Greek Church must be kept unaltered, and your priests must be made to follow them" (Bullarium Ben. XIV., Tom. I). He ordains that Melkites who, for lack ofa priest of their own Rite, had been baptized by a Latin, should not be considered as having changed to our Use: "We forbid absolutely that any Catholic Melkites who follow the Greek Rite should pass over to the Latin Rite" (ib., cap. xvii).

The Encyclical "Allatae sunt" forbids missionaries to convert schismatics to the Latin Rite; when they become Catholics they must join the corresponding Eastern Rite (XI). In the Bull "Etsi pastoralis" (1742) the same pope orders that there shall be no precedence because of Rite. Each prelate shall have rank according to his own position or the date of his ordination; in mixed dioceses, if the bishop is Latin (as in Southern Italy), he is to have at least one vicar-general of the other Rite (IX).

Most of all did the last two popes show their concern for Eastern Christendom. Each by a number of Acts carried on the tradition of conciliation towards the schismatical Churches and of protection of Catholic Eastern Rites.

Pius IX, in his Encyclical "In Suprema Petri" (Epiphany, 1848), again assures non-Catholics that "we will keep unchanged your liturgies, which indeed we greatly honour"; schismatic clergy who join the Catholic Church are to keep the same rank and position as they had before. In 1853 the Catholic Rumanians were given a bishop of their own Rite, and in the Allocution made on that occasion, as well as in the one to the Armenians on 2 February, 1854, he again insists on the same principle. In 1860 the Bulgars, disgusted with the Phanar (the Greeks of Constantinople), approached the Catholic Armenian patriarch, Hassun; he, and the pope confirming him, promised that there should be no latinizing of their Rite. Pius IX founded, 6 January, 1862, a separate department for the Oriental Rites as a special section of the great Propaganda Congregation.

Leo XIII in 1888 wrote a letter to the Armenians (Paterna charitas) in which he exhorts the Gregorians to reunion, always on the same terms. But his most important act, perhaps the most important of all documents of this kind, is the Encyclical "Orientalium dignitas ecclesiarum" of 30 November, 1894. In this letter the pope reviewed and confirmed all similar acts of his predecessors and then strengthened them by yet severer laws against any form of latinizing the East. The first part of the Encyclical quotes examples of the care of former popes for Eastern Rites, especially of Pius IX; Pope Leo remembers also what he himself has already done for the same cause -- the foundation of colleges at Rome, Philippopoli, Adrianople, Athens, and St. Ann at Jerusalem. He again commands that in these colleges students should be exactly trained to observe their own rites. He praises these venerable Eastern liturgies as representing most ancient and sacred traditions, and quotes again the text that has been used so often for this purpose, circumdata varietate applied to the queen, who is the Church (Ps. xliv, 10). The Constitutions of Benedict XIV against latinizers are confirmed; new and most severe laws are promulgated: any missionary who tries to persuade an Eastern-Rite Catholic to join the Latin Rite is ipso facto suspended, and is to be expelled from his place. In colleges where boys of different Rites are educated there are to be priests of each Rite to administer the sacraments. In case of need one may receive a sacrament from a priest of another Rite; but for Communion it should be, if possible, at least one who uses the same kind of bread. No length of use can prescribe a change of Rite. A woman marrying may conform to her husband's Rite, but if she becomes a widow she must go back to her own.

In the Encyclical "Praeclara gratulationis', of 20 June, 1894, that has been often described as "Leo XIII's testament", he again turned to the Eastern Churches and invited them in the most courteous and the gentlest way to come back to communion with us. He assures schismatics that no great difference exists between their faith and ours, and repeats once more thathe would provide for all their customs without narrowness (Orth. Eastern Church, 434, 435). It was this letter that called forth the unpardonably offense answer of Anthimos VII of Constantinople (op. cit., 435-438). Nor, as long as he lived, did Leo XIII cease caring for Eastern Churches. On 11 June, 1895, he wrote the letter "Unitas christiana" to be the Copts, and on 24 December of that same year he restored the Catholic Coptic patriarchate. Lastly, on 19 March, 1895, in a motu proprio, he again insisted on the reverence due to the Eastern Churches and explained the duties of Latin delegates in the East.

As a last example of all, Pius X in his Allocution, after the now famous celebration of the Byzantine Liturgy in his presence on 12 February, 1908, again repeated the same declaration of respect for Eastern rites and customs and the same assurance of his intention to preserve them (Echos d'Orient, May, 1908, 129-31). Indeed this spirit of conservatism with regard to liturgies is in our own time growing steadily at Rome with the increase of liturgical knowledge, so that there is reason to believe that whatever unintentional mistakes have been made in the past (chiefly with regard to the Maronite and Catholic Armenian rites) will now gradually be corrected, and that the tradition of the most entire acceptance and recognition of other rites in the East will be maintained even more firmly than in the past.

Conclusion

On the other hand, in spite of occasional outbursts of anti-papal feeling on the part of the various chiefs of these Churches, it is certain that the vision of unity is beginning to make itself seen very widely in the East. In the first place, education and contact with Western Europeans inevitably breaks down a great part of the old prejudice, jealousy, and fearof us. It was a Latin missionary who said lately: "They are finding out that we are neither so vicious nor so clever as they had thought." And with this intercourse grows the hope of regeneration for their own nations by contact with the West. Once they realize that we do not want to eat them up, and that their milal are safe, whatever happens, they cannot but see the advantages we have to offer them. And with this feeling goes the gradual realization of something larger in the way of a Church than their own milal. Hitherto, it was difficult to say that the various Eastern schismatics understood by the "Catholic Church" in the creed. The Orthodox certainly always mean their own communion only ("Orth. Eastern Church", 366-70); the other smaller bodies certainly hold that they alone have the true faith; everyone else -- especially Latins -- is a heretic. So, presumably, for them, too, the Catholic Church is only their own body. But this is passing with the growth of more knowledge of other countries and a juster sense of perspective. The Nestorian who looks at a map of the world can hardly go on believing that his sect is the only and whole Church of Christ. And with the apprehension of larger issues there comes the first wish for reunion. For a Church consisting of mutually excommunicate bodies is a monstrosity that is rejected by everyone (except perhaps some Armenians) in the East.

The feeling out towards the West for sympathy, help, and perhaps eventually communion, is in the direction of Catholics, not of Protestants. Protestantism is too remote from all their theology, and its principles are too destructive of all their system for it to attract them. Harnack notes this of Russians: that their more friendly feeling towards the West tends Romeward, not in an Evangelical direction (Reden and Aufsätze, II, 279); it is at least equally true of other Eastern Churches. When the conviction has spread that they have everything to gain by becoming again members of a really universal Church, that union with Rome means all the advantages of Western ideas and a sound theological position, and that, on the other hand, it leaves the national millet untouched, un-latinized, and only stronger for so powerful an alliance, then indeed the now shadowy and remote issues about nature and person in Christ, the entirely artificial grievances of the Filioque and our azyme bread will easily be buried in the dust that has gathered over them for centuries, and Eastern Christians may some day wake up and find that there is nothing to do but to register again a union that ought never to have been broken.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE

Easterwine

(Or Eosterwini).

Abbot of Wearmouth, was the nephew of St. Benedict Biscop; born 650, died 7 March, 686. Descended from the noblest stock of Northumbria, as a young man he led the life of a soldier in the army of King Egfrid, the son of Oswy. When twenty-four years old he gave up the soldier's profession to become a monk in the monastery of Wearmouth, then ruled over by St. Benedict Biscop. He is described as a noble youth, conspicuous for his humility and bodily activity, but withal infinitely gentle; a most exact observer ofrule and one who loved to perform the lowliest work. He was ordained priest in the year 679, and in 682 St. Benedict appointed him abbot of Wearmouth as coadjutor to himself. As superior "when he was compelled to reprove a fault, it was done with such tender sadness that the culprit felt himself incapable of any new offence which should bring a cloud over the benign brightness of that beloved face". In the year 686 a deadly pestilence overspread the country; it attacked the community at Wearmouth and the youthful abbot was one of its victims. He bade farewell to all, the day before he died, and passed away on 7 March, when only thirty-six years old. St. Benedict was absent in Rome at the time of his death and Sigfriedwas chosen by the monks as his successor. Easterwine is not known to have been the author of any works.

G.E. HIND

Adam Easton

Cardinal, born at Easton in Norfolk; died at Rome, 15 September (according to others, 20 October), 1397. He joined the Benedictines at Norwich. He probably accompanied Archbishop Langham to Rome and, being a man of learning and ability, obtained a post in the Curia. He was made Cardinal-priest of the title of St. Cecilia by Urban VI, probably in December, 1381. On 7 March, 1381 or 1382, he was nominated Dean of York. In 1385 he was imprisoned by Urban on a charge of conspiring with five other cardinals against the pope and was deprived of his cardinalate and deanery. The next pope, Boniface IX, restored his cardinalate 18 December, 1389, and for a time Easton returned to England, where he held a prebend in Salisbury cathedral, which he subsequently exchanged for the living of Heygham in Norwich. He wrote many works, none of which are extant, and is stated to have composed the Office for the Visitation of Our Lady.

EDWIN BURTON

St. Eata

Second Bishop of Hexham; date of birth unknown; died 26 October, 686. Whether this disciple of St. Aidan was of the English, or of the aboriginal Pictish, race, there is no means of judging. As early as 651 he was electedAbbot of Melrose, which was then within the metropolitan jurisdiction ofYork. With the increase of the Christian population in northeastern Britain, the spiritual government of a territory was so wide as that which was then called Northumbria became too heavy a charge for one see; accordingly, in 678 Archbishop Theodore constituted Bernicia (that part of the Northumbrian realm which lay to the north of the River Tees) a suffragan diocese and consecrated Eata its bishop. The new diocese was to have two episcopal sees, one at Hexham and the other at Lindisfarne, at the two extremities of what is now the County of Northumberland. Eata was to be styled "Bishop of the Bernicians". This arrangement lasted only three years, and the See of Hexham was then assigned to Trumbert, while Eata kept Lindisfarne. In 684, after the death of Trumbert, St. Cuthbert was elected Bishop of Hexham, but when the latter expressed a desire to remain in his old home rather than remove to a more southern see, Eata readily consented to exchange with him, and for the last two years of his life occupied the See of Hexham, while Cuthbert ruled as bishop at Lindisfarne. Like most of the early saints of the English Church, St. Eata was canonized by general repute of sanctity among the faithful in the regions which he helped to Christianize. His feast is kept on 26 October, the day of his death.

E. MACPHERSON

Ebbo

(EBO)

Archbishop of Reims, b. towards the end of the eighth century; d. 20 March, 851. Though born of German serfs, he was educated at the court of Charlemagne who gave him his liberty. After his elevation to the priesthood he became librarian of Louis le Débonnaire and was his councillor in the government of Aquitaine. When Louis became emperor he appointed Ebbo archbishop of the vacant See of Reims in 816. Acting on the suggestion of the emperor, he went to Rome in 822, in order to obtain permission from Pope Paschal I to preach the Gospel to the Danes. The pope not only gave his sanction but also appointed Ebbo papal legate for the North. In company with a certain Halitgar, probably the one who was Bishop of Cambrai (817-831), and Willerich, Bishop of Bremen, he set out for Denmark in the spring of 823, and after preaching with some success during the following summer he returned to France in the autumn of the same year. Twice again he returned to Denmark, but each time his stay was of short duration and without any lasting effect on the pagan Danes whose Christianization was brought about a few years later by St. Ansgar. When, in 830, the sons of the emperor rose in rebellion against their father, Ebbo supported the emperor; but three years later he turned against him and on 13 November, 833, presided at the shameful scene enacted in the Church of St. Mary at Soissons, where the aged emperor was deposed and compelled to perform public penance for crimes which he had not committed. As a reward for this disgraceful act Ebbo received the rich Abbey of St. Vaast from Lothaire. He continued to support the rebellious Lothaire even after Louis had been solemnly reinstated in March, 834. Being prevented by a severe attack of the gout from following Lothaire to Italy he took refuge in the cell of a hermit near Paris, but was found out and sent as prisoner to the Abbey of Fulda. On 2 February, 835, he appeared at the Synod of Thionville, where in the presence of the emperor and forty-three bishops he solemnly declared the monarch innocent of the crimes of which he had accused him at Soissons, and on 28 February, 835, made a public recantation from the pulpit of the cathedral of Metz.

Returning to the synod at Thionville, Ebbo was deposed by the emperor and the assembled bishops and brought back as prisoner to the Abbey of Fulda. Somewhat later he was given in custody to Bishop Fréculf of Lisieux and afterwards to Abbot Boso of Fleury. When Lothair became emperor, Ebbo was restored to the See of Reims, in December, 840, but a year later, when Charles the Bald invaded the north-eastern part of France, he was again driven from his see. Many had considered Ebbo's reinstatement by Lothair unlawful, and Hincmar, who became Archbishop of Reims in 845, refused to recognize the ordinations administered by him after his reinstatement. The Council of Soissons (853) declared the ordinations invalid. There seems to be little doubt that the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals have as their author one of the ecclesiastics ordained by Ebbo after his reinstatement. Ebbo found shelter at the court of Lothair, who gave him the incomes of several abbeys and used him for various legations. In 844 Ebbo requested Pope Sergius II to restore him to the See of Reims but was admitted only to lay communion. A few other attempts to regain his former see were likewise unsuccessful. When Lothair could make no further use of Ebbo he discarded him, but Ebbo found a supporter in Louis the German, who appointed him Bishop of Hildesheim some time between April, 845, and October, 847. Ebbo is the author of the "Apologeticul Ebbonis", a short apologetic narrative of his deposition and reinstatement. It is published in Mansi, "Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum", XIV, 775-9, and in Migne, P.L., CXVI, 11-16.

MICHAEL OTT.

Thomas Ebendorfer

German chronicler, professor, and statesman, b. 12 August, 1385, at Haselbach, in Upper Austria; d. at Vienna, 8 Jan., 1464. He made his higher studies at the University of Vienna, where in 1412 he received the degree of Master of Arts. Until 1427 he was attached to the Faculty of Arts and lectured on Aristotle and Latin grammar. After 1419 he was also admitted to the theological faculty as cursor biblicus. In 1427 he was made licentiate and in 1428 master of theology; soon after he became dean of the theological faculty, in which body he was a professor until his death. Three several times, 1423, 1429, and 1445 he was rector of the University of Vienna; he was also canon of St. Stephen's, and engaged in the apostolic ministry as preacher and as pastor of Perchtoldsdorf and of Falkenstein near Vienna. He ranks high among the professors of the University of Vienna in the fifteenth century. In the struggles which it had to sustain he championed the rights and interests of the university with zeal and energy. He represented the university at the Council of Basle (1432-34), took an active part in all its discussions, and was one of the delegates sent by the council to Prague to confer with the Hussites. From 1440 to 1444 he was sent to various cities as ambassador of Emperor Frederick III. He disapproved of the attitude of the Council of Basle towards both pope and emperor, and eventually withdrew from it. His advocacy of the rights of the Vienna University, coupled with the attacks of his opponents lost him the favour of the emperor, who saw in him a secret enemy. In 1451 and 1452 he was in Italy and went to Rome where he obtained from the pope a confirmation of the privileges of the University of Vienna. In the war between Frederick III and Albert of Brandenburg he tried to act as mediator but only fell into greater disfavour with Frederick. His last years were clouded by the disturbances of the years 1461-1463 during which Austria had much to suffer from the Bohemian king, George of Podiebrad, and from internal conflicts.

Ebendorfer is one of the most prominent chroniclers of the fifteenth century. His "Chronicon Austriae" is a dull but frank and very detailed history of Austria to 1463. From 1400 on it is an indispensable source of Austrian history (ed. Pez in "Scriptores rerum Austriacarum", II, Leipzig, 1725, 689-986; in this edition all of Book I and part of Book II were omitted). His account of the Council of Basle appears in the "Diarium gestorum concilii Basileensis pro reductione Bohemorum" (ed. Birk in Monumenta concilii Basileensis, Scriptores, I, Vienna, 1875, 701-783). He wrote also a history of the Roman emperors, "Chronica regum Romanorum"; Books VI and VII, which are of independent value as sources, were edited by Pribram in the "Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung", third supplementary volume (Innsbruck, 1890-94), 38-222. Many of his writings are as yet unedited, among them commentaries on Biblical books, sermons, "Liber de schismatibus", "Liber Pontificum Romanorum" (see Levinson, "Thomas Ebendorfers Liber Pontificum" in "Mitteilungen des Instituts fur osterreichische Geschichtsforschung", XX, 1899, 69-99).

J.P. KIRSCH

Matthias Eberhard

Bishop of Trier, b. 15 Nov., 1815, at Trier (Germany), d. there 30 May, 1876. After successfully completing the gymnasium course of his native town, he devoted himself to the study of theology, was ordained in 1839, and soon after made assistant at St. Castor's in Coblenz. In 1842 Bishop Arnoldi made him his private secretary, and, at the end of the same year, professor of dogmatics in the seminary of Trier. From 1849 to 1862 he was director of the seminary and also preacher at the cathedral; in 1850 he became a member of the chapter; from 1852 to 1856 he was representative of his fellow-citizens in the Prussian Lower Chamber, where he joined the Catholic section. On 7 April, 1862, he was preconized as auxiliary bishop of Trier; after Arnoldi's death he was proposed for the episcopal see, but the Prussian government acknowledged him only after the death of Arnoldi's successor, Pelldram, 16 July, 1867. Having chosen St. Charles Borromeo for his ideal, he spared no exertion, on the one hand, to make his clergy learned, zealous, devout, and thoroughly cultured, and on the other to cultivate a truly Christian and religious spirit in the people. To attain this double end, he bestowed very great care upon his seminary and demanded a conscientious observation of his rules on the pastoral conferences and the annual retreat. In the parishes he insisted on the instruction in Christian doctrine and on the giving of missions, took care that religious associations were established, especially among the youths and men, and tried to found everywhere good libraries for the people. At the Vatican Council he appeared several times as a speaker; he belonged to the minority of the bishops, who considered the definition of the pope's infallibility as inopportune for the time being; but as soon as the matter had been decided, he published the constitution at once. When, in the beginning of the seventies, the Prussian government wished to fetter bishops and priests by its ecclesiastico-political legislation, Bishop Eberhard unflinchingly defended the rights of the Church and thus became one of the first victims of the so-called Kulturkampf. At first he was fined an exorbitant sum, but since he could not pay it, he was retained in the prison of Trier from 6 March to 31 December, 1874. New persecutions began after he had been dismissed; the flourishing institutions which belonged to the Church were closed and the appointment of priests was made impossible; the grief at the unhappy condition of his diocese accelerated his death. He is the author of a dissertation "De tituli Sedis Apostolicae ad insigniendam sedem Romanam usu antiquo ac vi singulari" (Trier, 1877-1883; Freiburg, 1894-1903).

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER.

Eberhard of Ratisbon

(Or Salzburg; also called Eberhardus Altahensis).

A German chronicler who flourished about the beginning of the fourteenth century. Hardly anything is known about his life; the only positive factsare obtained from documents of the years 1294-1305, which show that within this period he was active as a magister, Augustinian canon, and archdeacon. He is the author of a chronicle that begins with the election of Rudolf of Hapsburg and extends to 1305. He desired to give an account of Bavarian history only, but was unable to fully execute this intention. In reality he describes more or less fully events occurring outside of Bavaria that seem to him of importance. The value of the chronicle is increasedby the greater detail with which he treats the last five years, and in this part are also added important letters which serve to make the narrative more life-like. There is no doubt that the work was influenced by Hermann, the celebrated Abbot of Niederaltaich, the founder of a new and brilliant period of annalistic writing and to whom is due a wonderful development in the art of historical writing in Bavaria during the latter half of the thirteenth century. The "Annales" of Eberhard were formerly held tobe a direct continuation of Hermann's chronicle, but in the introductionto his edition of the "Annales" Jaffé has disproved this hypothesis. Eberhard's chronicle is, rather, an independent work, connected with its continuations (the so-called "Continuatio Altahensis" and the "Continuatio Ratisponensis") only by their occasional paraphrases of what Eberhard has said or by information they occasionally add to his statements. The earliest edition of the "Annales" is that of H. Canisius in his "Lectiones antiquæ", I, 307-358. An improved edition was published by Böhmer, "Fontes",II, 526-553, and another by Jaffé in "Mon. Germ. Hist., Scriptores", XVI, 592-605.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER

Ebionites

By this name were designated one or more early Christian sects infected with Judaistic errors.

The word Ebionites, or rather, more correctly, Ebionæans (Ebionaioi), is a transliteration of an Aramean word meaning "poor men". It first occurs in Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2, but without designation of meaning. Origen (C. Celsum, II, i; De Princ., IV, i, 22) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III, xxvii) refer the name of these sectaries either to the poverty of their understanding, or to the poverty of the Law to which they clung, or to the poor opinions they held concerning Christ. This, however, is obviously not the historic origin of the name. Other writers, such as Tertullian (De Praescr., xxxiii; De Carne Chr., xiv, 18), Hippolytus (cfr. Pseudo-Tert., Adv. Haer., III, as reflecting Hippolytus's lost "Syntagma"), and Epiphanius (Haeres., xxx) derive the name of the sect from a certain Ebion, its supposed founder. Epiphanius even mentions the place of his birth, a hamlet called Cochabe in the district of Bashan, and relates that he travelled through Asia and even came to Rome. Of modern scholars Hilgenfeld has maintained the historical existence of this Ebion, mainly on the ground of some passages ascribed to Ebion by St. Jerome (Comm. in Gal., iii, 14) and by the author of a compilation of patristic texts against the Monothelites. But these passages are not likely to be genuine, and Ebion, otherwise unknown to history, is probably only an invention to account for the name Ebionites. The name may have been self-imposed by those who gladly claimed the beatitude of being poor in spirit, or who claimed to live after the pattern of the first Christians in Jerusalem, who laid their goods at the feet of the Apostles. Perhaps, however, it was first imposed by others and is to be connected with the notorious poverty of the Christians in Palestine (cf. Gal., ii, 10). Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe the Mosaic Law. These, ceasing to be in touch with the bulk of the Christian world, would gradually have drifted away from the standard of orthodoxy and become formal heretics. A stage in this development is seen in St. Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew", chapter xlvii (about A. D. 140), where he speaks of two sects of Jewish Christians estranged from the Church: those who observe the Mosaic Law for themselves, but do not require observance thereof from others; and those who hold it of universal obligation. The latter are considered heretical by all; but with the former St. Justin would hold communion, though not all Christians would show them the same indulgence. St. Justin, however, does not use the term Ebionites, and when this term first occurs (about A. D. 175) it designates a distinctly heretical sect.

The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). Their doctrines are similarly described by Hippolytus (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18), but their observance of the Law seems no longer so prominent a feature of their system as in the account given by Irenaeus. Origen is the first (C. Cels., V, lxi) to mark a distinction between two classes of Ebionites, a distinction which Eusebius also gives (Hist. Eccl., III, xxvii). Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and His Divinity. Those who accepted the virginal birth seem to have had more exalted views concerning Christ and, besides observing the Sabbath, to have kept the Sunday as a memorial of His Resurrection. The milder sort of Ebionites were probably fewer and less important than their stricter brethren, because the denial of the virgin birth was commonly attributed to all. (Origen, Hom. in Luc., xvii) St. Epiphanius calls the more heretical section Ebionites, and the more Catholic-minded, Nazarenes. But we do not know whence St. Epiphanius obtained his information or or how far it is reliable. It is very hazardous, therefore, to maintain, as is sometimes done, that the distinction between Nazarenes and Ebionites goes back to the earliest days of Christianity.

Besides these merely Judaistic Ebionites, there existed a later Gnostic development of the same heresy. These Ebionite Gnostics differed widely from the main schools of Gnosticism, in that they absolutely rejected any distinction between Jehovah the Demiurge, and the Supreme Good God. Those who regard this distinction as essential to Gnosticism would even object to classing Ebionites as Gnostics. But on the other hand the general character of their teaching is unmistakably Gnostic. This can be gathered from the Pseudo-Clementines and may be summed up as follows: Matter is eternal, and an emanation of the Deity; nay it constitutes, as it were, God's body. Creation, therefore, is but the transformation of pre-existing material. God thus "creates" the universe by the instrumentality of His wisdom which is described as a "demiurgic hand" (cheir demiourgousa) producing the world. But this Logos, or Sophia, does not constitute a different person, as in Christian theology. Sophia produces the world by a successive evolution of syzygies, the female in each case preceding the male but being finally overcome by him. This universe is, moreover, divided into two realms, that of good and that of evil. The Son of God rules over the realm of the good, and to him is given the world to come, but the Prince of Evil is the prince of this world (cf. John, xiv, 30; Eph., i, 21; vi, 12). This Son of God is the Christ, a middle-being between God and creation, not a creature, yet not equal to, nor even to be compared with, the Father (autogenneto ou sygkrinetai -- "Hom.", xvi, 16). Adam was the bearer of the first revelation, Moses of the second, Christ of the third and perfect one. The union of Christ with Jesus is involved in obscurity. Man is saved by knowledge (gnosis), by believing in God the Teacher, and by being baptized unto remission of sins. Thus he receives knowledge and strength to observe all the precepts of the law. Christ shall come again to triumph over Antichrist as light dispels darkness. The system is Pantheism, Persian Dualism, Judaism, and Christianity fused together, and here and there reminds one of Mandaistic literature. The "Recognitions", as given us in Rufinus's translation (revision?), come nearer to Catholic teaching than do the "Homilies".

Amongst the writings of the Ebionites must be mentioned:

• Their Gospel. St. Irenaeus only states that they used the Gospel of St. Matthew. Eusebius modifies this statement by speaking of the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was known to Hegesippus (Eus., Hist. Eccl., IV, xxii, 8), Origen (Jerome, De vir., ill., ii), and Clem. Alex. (Strom., II, ix, 45). This, probably, was the slightly modified Aramaic original of St. Matthew, written in Hebrew characters. But St. Epiphanius attributes this to the Nazarenes, while the Ebionites proper only possessed an incomplete, falsified, and truncated copy thereof (Adv. Haer., xxix, 9). It is possibly identical with the Gospel of the Twelve.
• Their Apocrypha: "The Circuits of Peter" (periodoi Petrou) and Acts of the Apostles, amongst which the "Ascents of James" (anabathmoi Iakobou). The first-named books are substantially contained in the Clementine Homilies under the title of Clement's "Compendium of Peter's itinerary sermons", and also in the "Recognitions" ascribed to the same. They form an early Christian didactic novel to propagate Ebionite views, i.e. their Gnostic doctrines, the supremacy of James, their connection with Rome, and their antagonism to Simon Magus. (See CLEMENTINES.)
• The Works of Symmachus, i.e. his translation of the Old Testament (see VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE; SYMMACHUS THE EBIONITE), and his "Hypomnemata" against the canonical Gospel of St. Matthew. The latter work, which is totally lost (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xvii; Jerome, De vir. ill., liv), is probably identical with "De distinctione præceptorum", mentioned by Ebed Jesu (Assemani, Bibl. Or., III, 1).
• The book of Elchesai, or of "The Hidden power", purporting to have been written about A. D. 100 and brought to Rome about A. D. 217 by Alcibiades of Apamea. Those who accepted its doctrines and its new baptism were called Elchesaites. (Hipp., "Philos.", IX, xiv-xvii; Epiph., "Haer.", xix, 1; liii, 1.)

Of the history of this sect hardly anything is known. They exerted only the slightest influence in the East and none at all in the West, where they were known as Symmachiani. In St. Epiphanius's time small communities seem still to have existed in some hamlets of Syria and Palestine, but they were lost in obscurity. Further east, in Babylonia and Persia, their influence is perhaps traceable amongst the Mandeans, and it is suggested by Uhlhorn and others that they may be brought into connection with the origin of Islam.

J.P. ARENDZEN

Ebner

The name of two German mystics, whom historical research has shown to have been in no wise related.

(1) Christina Ebner

Born of a patrician family on Good Friday, at Nuremberg, 1277; died at Engelthat, 27 December, 1355. From her mother she inherited a deeply religious spirit, which early manifested itself in a fondness for prayer and mortification. Hardly had she made her First Communion when her parents acceded to a desire, which she had expressed since her seventh year, of entering the Dominican convent at Engelthal in the vicinity of Nuremberg. At the end of her year of novitiate she was stricken with a dangerous illness, which reappeared three times annually from her thirteenth to her twenty-third year. Each year, for the remainder of her life, she suffered a relapse of this mysterious sickness. Christina did not, however, on this account relax her penitential practices, nor fail in her duties as superior, to which she had been early elected. In her thirteenth year she began to enjoy frequent visits from the Master, from whose words she drew light and counsel for her own direction. As a result she was misunderstood by all save her confessor, Father Konrad of Fussen, O.P., at whose command, in the Advent of 1317, she began to write a diary of her spiritual experiences in chronological order. After an introduction in which she reviews in a simple, unaffected manner the whole history of her life till 1317, this touching piece of mystical literature is carried on till 1353. She speaks of herself in the third person as von dem menschen. Most of this diary was written by her own hand save when she dictated on account of illness. It is preserved, in a complete version of the fifteenth century, in a manuscript (cod. 90) at Nuremberg. Excerpts are to be found also at the same place (cod. 89, 91), at Stuttgart (cod. 90), and Medingen. We learn from this source that Christina played an important part by her prayers in the settlement of the difficulties arising from the riots at Nuremberg in 1348; from the earthquake of the same year; the Black Death; the Flagellants' processions of 1349; and the long quarrel between Louis the Bavarian and the Holy See. She also tells us of the absence of a director from the removal of Konrad to Freiburg in 1324 till 1351, when Henry of Nördlingen visited her and gave her advice sufficient for the remainder of her life. The treatise "Von der genaden uberlast" which the Stuttgart Literary Society edited over her name in 1871 is probably not her work.

(2) Margaretha Ebner

Born of rich parents at Donauworth, 1291; died 20 July, 1351. She received a thorough classical education in her home, and later entered the Dominican convent at Maria-Medingen near Dillingen, where she was solemnly professed in 1306. In 1312 she was dangerously ill for three years, and subsequently for a period of nearly seven years she was most of the time at the point of death. Hence she could exercise her desire for penance only by abstinence from wine, fruit, and the bath. On her return from home, whither she had gone during the campaign of Louis the Bavarian, her nurse died, and Margaretha grieved inconsolably, until Henry of Nördlingen assumed her spiritual direction in 1332. The correspondence that passed between them is the first collection of this kind in the German language. At his command she wrote with her own hand a full account of all her revelations and intercourse with the Infant Christ, as also all answers which she received from Him even in her sleep. This diary is preserved in a manuscript of the year 1353 at Medingen. From her letters and diary we learn that she never abandoned her adhesion to Louis the Bavarian, whose soul she learned in a vision had been saved.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER.

Ecclesiastes

(Sept. èkklesiastés, in St. Jerome also Concionator, "Preacher").

Ecclesiastes is the name given to the book of Holy Scripture which usually follows the Proverbs; the Hebrew Qoheleth probably has the same meaning. The word preacher, however, is not meant to suggest a congregation nor a public speech, but only the solemn announcement of sublime truths [hqhyl, passive nqhl, Lat. congregare, I (III) K., viii, 1, 2; bqhl, in publico, palam, Prov., v, 14; xxvi, 26; qhlh to be taken either as a feminine participle, and would then be either a simple abstract noun, præconium, or in a poetic sense, tuba clangens, or must be taken as the name of a person, like the proper nouns of similar formation, Esd., ii, 55, 57; corresponding to its use, the word is always used as masculine, except vii, 27]. Solomon, as the herald of wisdom, proclaims the most serious truths. His teaching may be divided as follows.

Introduction

Everything human is vain (i, 1-11); for man, during his life on earth, is more transient than all things in nature (i, 1-7), whose unchangeable course he admires, but does not comprehend (i, 8-11).

Part I

Vanity in man's private life (i, 12-iii, 15): vain is human wisdom (i, 12-18); vain are pleasures and pomp (ii, 1-23). Then, rhetorically exaggerating, he draws the conclusion: "Is it not better to enjoy life's blessings which God has given, than to waste your strength uselessly?" (ii, 24-26). As epilogue to this part is added the proof that all things are immutably predestined and are not subject to the will of man (iii, 1-15). In this first part, the reference to the excessive luxury described in III Kings, x, is placed in the foreground. Afterwards, the author usually prefaces his meditations with an "I saw", and explains what he has learned either by personal observation or by other means, and on what he has meditated. Thus he saw:–

Part II

Sheer vanity also in civil life (iii, 16-vi, 6). Vain and cheerless is life because of the iniquity which reigns in the halls of justice (iii, 16-22) as well as in the intercourse of men (iv, 1-3). The strong expressions in iii, 18 sqq., and iv, 2 sq., must be explained by the writer's tragic vein, and thus does credit to the writer, who, speaking as Solomon, deplores bitterly what has often enough happened in his kingdom also, whether through his fault or without his knowledge. The despotic rule of the kings was described in advance by Samuel and Solomon cannot be cleared of all guilt (see below). But even the best prince will, to his grief, find by experience that countless wrongs cannot be prevented in a large empire. Qoheleth does not speak of the wrongs which he himself has suffered, but of those which others sustained. Another of life's vanities consists in the fact that mad competition leads many to fall into idleness (iv, 4-6); a third causes many a man through greed to shun society, or even to lose a throne because his unwisdom forbids him to seek the help of other men (iv, 7-16). Qoheleth then turns once more to the three classes of men named: to those who groan under the weight of injustice, in order to exhort them not to sin against God by murmuring against Providence, for this would be tantamount to dishonouring God in His temple, or to breaking a sacred vow, or to denying Providence (iv, 17-v, 8); in the same way he gives a few salutary counsels to the miser (v, 9-19) and describes the misery of the supposed foolish king (vi, 1-6). A long oratorical amplification closes the second part (vi, 7-vii, 30). The immutable predestination of all things by God must teach man contentment and modesty (vi, 7-vii, 1, Vulg.). A serious life, free from all frivolity, is best (vii, 2-7, Vulg.). Instead of passionate outbreaks (vii, 8-15), he recommends a golden mean (vii, 16-23). Finally, Qoheleth inquires into the deepest and last reason of "vanity" and finds it in the sinfulness of woman; he evidently thinks also of the sin of the first woman, through which, against the will of God (30), misery entered the world (vii, 24-30). In this part, also, Qoheleth returns to his admonition to enjoy in peace and modesty the blessings granted by God, instead of giving oneself up to anger on account of wrongs endured, or to avarice, or to other vices (iii, 22; v, 17 sq.; vii, 15).

Part III

Part III begins with the question: "Who is as the wise man?" (In the Vulg. these words have been wrongly placed in chap. vii.) Qoheleth here gives seven or eight important rules for life as the quintessence of true wisdom. Submit to God's ("the king's") will (viii, 1-8). If you observe that there is no justice on earth, contain yourself, "eat and drink" (viii, 9-15). Do not attempt to solve all the riddles of life by human wisdom; it is better to enjoy modestly the blessings of life and to work according to one's strength, but always within the narrow limits set by God (viii, 16-ix, 12.–In the Vulg. ad aliud must be dropped). In this "siege" of your city (by God) seek help in true wisdom (ix, 13-x, 3). It is always most important not to lose your temper because of wrongs done to you (x, 4-15). Then follows the repetition of the adivce not to give oneself up to idleness; sloth destroys countries and nations, therefore work diligently, but leave the success to God without murmuring (x, 16-xi, 6). Even amid the pleasures of life do not forget the Lord, but think of death and judgment (xi, 7-xii, 8).

In the epilogue Qoheleth again lays stress upon his authority as the teacher of wisdom, and declares that the pith of his teaching is: Fear God and keep the Commandments; for that is the whole man.

In the above analysis, as must be expected, the writer of this article has been guided in some particulars by his conception of the difficult text before him, which he has set forth more completely in his commentary on the same. Many critics do not admit a close connection of ideas at all. Zapletal regards the book as a collection of separate aphorisms which form a whole only exteriorly; Bickell thought that the arrangement of the parts had been totally destroyed at an early date; Siegfried supposes that the book had been supplemented and enlarged in strata; Luther assumed several authors. Most commentators do not expect that they can show a regular connection of all the "sayings" and an orderly arrangement of the entire book. In the above analysis an attempt has been made to do this, and we have pointed out what means may lead to success. Several parts must be taken in the sense of parables, e.g. what is said in ix, 14 sqq., of the siege of a city by a king. And in viii, 2, and x, 20, "king" means God. It appears to me that iv, 17, is not to be taken literally; and the same is true of x, 8 sqq. Few will hestitate to take xi, 1 sqq., figuratively. Chap. xii must convince every one that bold allegories are quite in Qoheleth's style. Chap. iii would by very flat if the proposition, "There is a time for everything", carried no deeper meaning than the words disclose at first sight. The strongest guarantee of the unity and sequence of thoughts in the book is the theme, "Vanitas vanitatum", which emphatically opens it and is repeated again and again, and (xii, 8) with which it ends. Furthermore, the constant repetition of vidi or of similar expressions, which connect the arguments for the same truth; finally, the sameness of verbal and rhetorical turns and of the writer's tragic vein, with its hyperbolical language, from beginning to end.

In order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statements in the same book or what seem contradictions of manifest truths of the religious or moral order, ancient commentators assumed that Qoheleth expresses varying views in the form of a dialogue. Many modern commentators, on the other hand, have sought to remove these discrepancies by omitting parts of the text, in this way to obtain a harmonious collection of maxims, or even affirmed that the author had no clear ideas, and, e.g., was not convinced of the spirituality and immortality of the soul. But, apart from the fact that we cannot admit erroneous or varying views of life and faith in an inspired writer, we regard frequent alterations in the text or the proposed form of a dialogue as poor makeshifts. It suffices, in my opinion, to explain certain hyperbolical and somewhat paradoxical turns as results of the bold style and the tragic vein of the writer. If our explanation is correct, the chief reproach against Qoheleth–viz. that against his orthodoxy–falls to the ground. For if iii, 17; xi, 9; xii, 7, 14, point to another life as distinctly as can be desired, we cannot take iii, 18-21, as a denial of immortality. Besides, it is evident that in his whole book the author deplores only the vanity of the mortal or earthly life; but to this may be truly applied (if the hyperbolical language of the tragical mood is taken into consideration) whatever is said there by Qoheleth. We cannot find fault with his comparing the mortal life of man and his death to the life and death of the beast (in vv. 19 and 21 rwh must always be taken as "breath of life"). Again, iv, 2 sq., is only a hyperbolical expression; in like manner Job (iii, 3) curses in his grief the day of his birth. True, some allege that the doctrine of immortality was altogether unknown to early intiquity; but even the Saviour (Luke, xx, 37) adduced the testimony of Moses for the resurrection of the dead and was not contradicted by his adversaries. And ix, 5 sq. and 10, must be taken in a similar sense. Now, in dooming all things earthly to destruction, but attributing another life to the soul, Qoheleth admits the spirituality of the soul; this follows especially from xii, 7, where the body is returned to the earth, but the soul to God.

Sometimes Qoheleth also seems to be given to fatalism; for in his peculiar manner he lays great stress on the immutability of the laws of nature and of the universe. But he considers this immutability as dependent on God's will (iii, 14; vi, 2; vii, 14 sq.). Nor does he deny the freedom of man within the limits set by God; otherwise his admonitions to fear God, to work, etc. would be meaningless, and man would not have brought evil into the world through his own fault (vii, 29, Heb.) Just as little does he contest the freedom of God's decrees, for God is spoken of as the source of all wisdom (ii, 26; v, 5). His views of life do not lead Qoheleth to stoical indifference or to blind hatred; on the contrary he shows the deepest sympathy with the misery of the suffering and earnestly deprecates opposition against God. In contentment with one's lot, in the quiet enjoyment of the blessings given by God, he discerns the golden mean, by which man prevents the vagaries of passion. Neither does he thereby recommend a kind of epicurism. For the ever-recurring phrase, "Eat and drink, for that is the best in this life", evidently is only a typical formula by which he recalls man from all kinds of excesses. He recommends not idle, but moderate enjoyment, accompanyied by incessant labour. Many persist in laying one charge at Qoheleth's door, viz., that of pessimism. He seems to call all man's efforts vain and empty, his life aimless and futile, and his lot deplorable. It is true that a sombre mood prevails in the book, that the author chose as his theme the description of the sad and serious sides of life but is it pessimism to recognize the evils of life and to be impressed with them? Is it not rather the mark of a great and profound mind to deplore bitterly the imperfection of what is earthly, and, on the aother hand, the peculiarity of the frivolous to ignore the truth? The colours with which Qoheleth paints these evils are indeed glaring, but they naturally flow from the poetical-oratorical style of his book and from his inward agitation, which likewise gives rise to the hyperbolical language in the Book of Job and in certain psalms. However, Qoheleth, unlike the pessimists, does not inveigh against God and the order of the universe, but only man. Chap. vii, in which he inquires into the last cause of evil, closes with the words, "Only this I have found, that God made man right, and he hath entangled himself with an infinity of questions [or phantasms]". His philosophy shows us also the way in which man can find a modest happiness. While severely condemning exceptional pleasures and luxury (chap. ii), it counsels the enjoyment of those pleasures which God prepares for every man (viii, 15; ix, 7 sqq.; xi, 9). It does not paralyze, but incites activity (ix, 10; x, 18 sq.; xi, 1 sq.). It stays him in his afflictions (v, 7 sqq.; viii, 5; x, 4); it consoles him in death (iii, 17; xii, 7); it discovers at every step how necessary is the fear of God. But Qoheleth's greatest trouble seems to be his inability to find a direct, smooth answer to life's riddles; hence he so frequently deplores the insufficiency of his wisdom; on the other hand, besides wisdom, commonly so called, i.e. the wisdom resulting from man's investigations, he knows another kind of wisdom which soothes, and which he therefore recommends again and again (vii, 12, 20; Heb. viii, 1; ix, 17; xii, 9-14). It is true, we feel how the author wrestles with the difficulties which beset his inquiries into the riddles of life; but he overcomes them and offers us an effective consolation even in extraordinary trials. Extraordinary also must have been the occasion which led him to compose the book. He introduces himself from the beginning and repeatedly as Solomon, and this forcibly recalls Solomon shortly before the downfall of the empire; but we know from the Scriptures that this had been prepared by various rebellions and had been foretold by the infallible word of the prophet (see below). We must picture to ourselves Solomon in these critical times, how he seeks to strengthen himself and his subjects in this sore trial by the true wisdom which is a relief at all times; submission to the immutable will of God, the true fear of the Lord, undoubtedly must now appear to him the essence of human wisdom.

As the inspired character of Ecclesiastes was not settled in the Fifth Œcumenical Council but only solemnly reaffirmed against Theodore of Mopsuestia, the faithful have always found edification and consolation in this book. Already in the third century, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in his metaphrase, then Gregory of Nyssa, in eight homilies, later Hugh of St. Victor, in nineteen homilies, set forth the wisdom of Qoheleth as truly celestial and Divine. Every age may learn from his teaching that man's true happiness must not be looked for on earth, not in human wisdom, not in luxury, not in royal splendour; that many afflictions await everybody, in consequence either of the iniquity of others, or of his own passions; that God has shut him up within narrow limits, lest he become overweening, but that He does not deny him a small measure of happiness if he does not "seek things that are above him" (vii, 1, Vulg.), if he enjoys what God has bestowed on him in the fear of the Lord and in salutary labour. The hope of a better life to come grows all the stronger the less this life can satisfy man, especially the man of high endeavour. Now Qoheleth does not intend this doctrine for an individual or for one people, but for mankind, and he does not prove it from supernatural revelation, but from pure reason. This is his cosmopolitan standpoint, which Kuenen rightly recognized; unfortunately, this commentator wished to conclude from this that the book originated in Hellenistic times. Nowack refuted him, but the universal application of the meditations contained therein, to every man who is guided by reason, is unmistakable.

The Author of the Book

Most modern commentators are of the opinion that Qoheleth's style points not to Solomon, but to a later writer. About this the following may be said:–

(1) As a matter of fact, the language of this book differs widely from the language of the Proverbs. Some think that they have discovered many Aramaisms in it. What can we say on this point?–It cannot be gainsaid that Solomon and a great, if not the greatest part of his people understood Aramaic. (We take the word here as the common name of the dialects closely related to the Biblical Hebrew.) Abraham and Sara, as well as the wives of Isaac and Jacob, had come from Chaldea; it is therefore probable that the language of that country was preserved, beside the language of Palestine, in the family of the Patriarchs; at any rate, in Moses' time the people still used Aramaic expressions. They exclaim (Ex., xvi, 15) mn hwa while Moses himself once substituted the Hebrew mh-hwa; the name of the miraculous food, however, remained mn. A large portion of David's and Solomon's empire was peopled by Arameans, so that Solomon reigned from the Euphrates to Gaza [I (III) K., v, 4, Heb.; II Sam. (K.), x, 19; cf Gen., xv, 18]. He was conversant with the science of the "sons of the East" and exchanged with them his wisdom (I K., v, 10-14, Heb.). But, as Palestine lay along the commercial routes between the Euphrates and Phœ;necia, the Israelites, at least in the north of the country, must have been well acquainted with Aramaic. At the time of King Ezechias even the officials of Jerusalem understood Aramaic (Is., xxxvi, 11; II K., xviii, 26, Heb.). Solomon could therefore assume, without hesitation, a somewhat Aramaic speech, if reason or mere inclination moved him. As a skilful writer, he may have intended, especially in his old age, and in a book whose style is partly oratorical, partly philosophical, partly poetical, to enrich the language by new turns. Goethe's language in the second part of "Faust" differs greatly from the first, and introduces many neologisms. Now Solomon seems to have had a more important reason for it. As it lay in his very character to remove the barriers between pagans and Israelites, he may have had the conscious intention to address in this book, one of his last, not only the Israelites but his whole people; the Aramaic colouring of his language, then, served as a means to introduce himself to Aramaic readers, who, in their turn, understood Hebrew sufficiently. It is remarkable that the name of God, Jahweh, never occurs in Ecclesiastes, while Elohim is found thirty-seven times; it is more remarkable still that the name Jahweh has been omitted in a quotation (v, 3; cf. Deut., xxiii, 22). Besides, nothing is found in the book that could not be known through natural religion, without the aid of revelation.

(2) The Aramaisms may perhaps be explained in still another way. We probably possess the Old Testament, not in the original wording and orthography, but in a form which is slightly revised. We must unquestionably distinguish, it seems, between Biblical Hebrew as an unchanging literary language and the conversational Hebrew, which underwent constant changes. For there is no instance anywhere that a spoken language has been preserved for some nine hundred years so little changed in its grammar and vocabulary as the language of our extant canonical books. Let us, for an instance, compare the English, French, or German of nine hundred years ago with those languages in their present form. Hence it seems exceedingly daring to infer from the written Hebrew the character of the spoken language, and from the style of the book to infer the date of its composition. In the case of a literary language, on the other hand, which is a dead language and as such essentially unchangeable, it is reasonable to suppose that in the course of time its orthography, as well as single words and phrases, and, perhaps, here and there, some formal elements, have been subjected to change in order to be more intelligible to later readers. It is possible that Ecclesiastes was received into the canon in some such later edition. The Aramaisms, therefore, may also be explained in this manner; at any rate, the supposition that the time of the composition of a Biblical book may be deduced from its language is wholly questionable.

(3) This is a fact admitted by all those critics who ascribe Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, portions of Isaias and of the Pentateuch, etc., to a later period, without troubling themselves about the difference of style in these books.

(4) The eagerness to find Aramaisms in Ecclesiastes is also excessive. Expressions which are commonly regarded as such are found now and then in many other books. Hirzel thinks that he has found ten Aramaisms in Genesis, eight in Exodus, five in Leviticus, four in Numbers, nine in Deuteronomy, two in Josue, nine in Judges, five in Ruth, sixteen in Samuel, sixteen in the Psalms, and several in Proverbs. For this there may be a twofold explanation: Either the descendants of Abraham, a Chaldean, and of Jacob, who dwelt twenty years in the Land of Laban, and whose sons were almost all born there, have retained numerous Aramaisms in the newly acquired Hebrew tongue, or the peculiarities pointed out by Hitzig and others are no Aramaisms. It is indeed astonishing how accurately certain critics claim to know the linguistic peculiarities of each of the numerous authors and of every period of a language of which but little literature is left to us. Zöckler affirms that almost every verse of Qoheleth contains some Aramaisms (Komm., p. 115); Grotius found only four in the whole book; Hengstenberg admits ten; the opinions on this point are so much at variance that one cannot help noticing how varying men's conception of an Aramaism is. Peculiar or strange expressions are at once called Aramaisms; but, according to Hävernick, the Book of Proverbs, also, contains forty words and phrases which are often repeated and which are found in no other book; the Canticle of Canticles has still more peculiarities. On the contrary the Prophecies of Aggeus, Zacharias, and Malachias are without any of those peculiarities which are supposed to indicate so late a period. There is much truth in Griesinger's words: "We have no history of the Hebrew language".

(5) Even prominent authorities adduce Aramaisms which are shown to be Hebraic by clear proofs or manifest analogies from other books. There are hardly any unquestionable Aramaisms which can neither be found in other books nor regarded as Hebraisms, which perchance have survived only in Ecclesiastes (for a detailed demonstration cf. the present writer's Commentary, pp. 23-31). We repeat here Welte's words: "Only the language remains as the principal argument that it was written after Solomon; but how fallacious in such cases is the merely linguistic proof, need not be mentioned after what has been said."

It is alleged that the conditions as described in Ecclesiastes do not agree with the time and person of Solomon. True, the author, who is supposed to be Solomon, speaks of the oppression of the weak by the stronger, or one official by another, of the denial of right in the courts of justice (iii, 16; iv, 1; v, 7 sqq.; viii, 9 sq.; x, 4 sqq.). Now many think that such things could not have happened in Solomon's realm. But it surely did not escape the wisdom of Solomon that oppression occurs at all times and with every people; the glaring colours, however, in which he describes them originate in the tragic time of the whole book. Besides, Solomon himself was accused, after his death, of oppressing his people, and his son confirms the charge [I (III) K., xii, 4 and 14]; moreover, long before him, Samuel spoke of the despotism of the future kings [I Sam. (K.), viii, 11 sq.]. Many miss in the book an indication of the past sins and the subsequent repentance of the king or, on the other hand, wonder that he discloses the mistakes of his life so openly. But if these readers considered vii, 27-29, they could not help sharing Solomon's disgust at women's intrigues and their consequences; if obedience towards God is inculcated in various ways, and if this (xii, 13) is regarded as man's sole destination, the readers saw that the converted king feared the Lord; in chap. ii sensuality and luxury are condemned so vigorously that we may regard this passage as a sufficient expression of repentance. The openness, however, with which Solomon accuses himself only heightens the impression. This impression has at all times been so strong, precisely because it is the experienced, rich, and wise Solomon who brands the sinful aspirations of man as "vanity of vanities". Again, what Qoheleth says of himself and his wisdom in xii, 9 sqq., cannot sound strange if it comes from Solomon, especially since in this passage he makes the fear of the Lord the essence of wisdom. The passages iv, 13; viii, 10; ix, 13; x, 4, are considered by some as referring to historical persons, which seems to me incorrect; at any rate, indications of so general a nature do not necessarily point to definite events and persons. Other commentators think they have discovered traces of Greek philosophy in the book; Qoheleth appears to be now a sceptic, now a stoic, now an epicurean; but these traces of Hellenism, if existing at all, are nothing more than remote resemblances too weak to serve as arguments. Cheyne (Job and Solomon) sufficiently refuted Tyler and Plumptre. That iii, 12, is a linguistic Græcism, has not been proved, because the common meaning of ‘sh twb is retained by many commentators; moreover, in II Sam. (K.), xii, 18, ‘sh r‘h means "to be sorry"; the verb, therefore, has about the same force as if we translated ‘sh twb by eû práttein.

As all the other internal proofs against the authorship of Solomon are not more convincing, we must listen to the voice of tradition, which has always attributed Ecclesiastes to him. The Jews doubted not its composition by Solomon, but objected to the reception, or rather retention, of the book in the canon; Hillel's School decided definitely for its canonicity and inspiration. In the Christian Church Theodore of Mopsuestia and some others for a time obscured the tradition; all other witnesses previous to the sixteenth century favour the Solomonic authorship and the inspiration. The book itself bears testimony for Solomon, not only by the title, but by the whole tone of the discussion, as well as in i, 12; moreover, in xii, 9, Qoheleth is expressly called the author of many proverbs. The ancients never so much as suspected that here, as in the Book of Wisdom, Solomon only played a fictitious part. On the other hand, the attempt is made to prove that the details do not fit Solomon, and to contest his authorship with this single internal argument. The reasons adduced, however, are based upon textual explanations which are justly repudiated by others. Thus Hengstenberg sees (x, 16) in the king, "who is a child", an allusion to the King of Persia; Grätz, to Herod the Idumæan; Reusch rightly maintains that the writer speaks of human experiences in general. From ix, 13-15, Hitzig concludes that the author lived about the year 200; Bernstein thinks this ridiculous and opines that some other historical event is alluded to. Hengstenberg regards this passage as nothing more than a parable; on this last view, also, the translation of the Septuagint is based (it has the subjunctive; ’élthe basileús, "there may come a king"). As a matter of fact, Qoheleth describes only what has happened or may happen somewhere "under the sun" or at some time; he does not speak of political situations, but of the experience of the individual; he has in view not his people alone, but mankind in general. If internal reasons are to decide the question of authorship, it seems to me that we might more justly prove this authorship of Solomon with more right from the remarkable passage about the snares of woman (vii, 27), a passage the bitterness of which is not surpassed by the warning of any ascetic; or from the insatiable thirst of Qoheleth for wisdom; or from his deep knowledge of men and the unusual force of his style. Considering everything we see no decisive reason to look for another author; on the contrary, the reasons which have been advanced against this view are for the greatest part so weak that in this question the influence of fashion is clearly discernible.

The time of the composition of our book is variously set down by the critics who deny the authorship of Solomon. Every period from Solomon to 200 has been suggested by them; there are even authorities for a later time; Grätz thinks that he has discovered clear proof that the book was written under King Herod (40-4 b.c.). This shows clearly how little likely the linguistic criterion and the other internal arguments are to lead to an agreement of opinion. If Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes towards the end of his life, the sombre tone of the book is easily explained; for the judgments of God (III Kings, xi) which then came upon him would naturally move him to sorrow and repentance, especially as the breaking up of his kingdom and the accompanying misery were then distinctly before his eyes (see vv. 29 sqq.; 40). Amid the sudden ruin of his power and splendour, he might well exclaim, "Vanity of vanities!". But as God had promised to correct him "in mercy" (II Kings, vii, 14 sq.), the supposition of many ancient writers that Solomon was converted to God becomes highly probable. Then we also understand why his last book, or one of his last, consists of three thoughts: the vanity of earthly things, self-accusation, and emphatic admonition to obey the immutable decrees of Providence. The last was well suited to save the Israelites from despair, who were soon to behold the downfall of their power.

There is an unmistakable similarity between Ecclesiastes and the Canticle of Canticles, not only in the pithy shortness of the composition, but also in the emphatic repetition of words and phrases, in the boldness of the language, in the obscure construction of the whole, and in certain linguistic peculiarities (e.g. the use of the relative s). The loose succession of sententious thoughts, however, reminds us of the Book of Proverbs, whence the epilogue (xii, 9 sqq.) expressly refers to Qoheleth's skill in parables. In the old lists of Biblical books, the place of Ecclesiastes is between Proverbs and the Canticle of Canticles: Sept., Talmud (Baba Bathra, xiv, 2), Orig., Mel., Concil. Laodic., etc., also in the Vulgate. Its position is different only in the Masoretic Bible, but, as is generally admitted, for liturgical reasons.

As to the contents, the critics attack the passages referring to the judgment and immortality: iii, 17; xi, 9; xii, 7; furthermore the epilogue, xii, 9 sqq., especially verses 13, 14; also some other passages. Bickell expressed the opinion that the folios of the original, while being stitched, were deranged and completely confused; his hypothesis found few advocates, and Euringer (Masorahtext des Qoheleth, Leipzig, 1890) maintains, in opposition to him, that books had not at that early date taken the place of rolls. There is not sufficient evidence to assume that the text was written in verse, as Zapletal does.

Owing to its literalism, the translation of the Septuagint is frequently unintelligible, and it seems that the translators used a corrupt Hebraic text. The Itala and the Coptic translation follow the Septuagint. The Peshito, though translated from the Hebrew, is evidently also dependent on the text of the Septuagint. This text, with the notes of Origen, partly forms the Greek and Syriac Hexapla. The Vulgate is a skilful translation made by Jerome from the Hebrew and far superior to his translation from the Greek (in his commentary). Sometimes we cannot accept his opinion (in vi, 9, he most likely wrote quid cupias, and in viii, 12, ex eo quod peccator). (See the remnants of the Hexapla of Origen in Field, Oxford, 1875; a paraphrase of the Greek text in St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Migne, X, 987.) The Chaldean paraphrast is useful for controlling the Masoretic text; the Midrash Qoheleth is without value. The commentary of Olympiodorus is also serviceable (seventh century, M., XCIII, 477) and Œcumenius, "Catena" (Verona, 1532). A careful translation from the Hebrew was made about 1400 in the "Græca Veneta" (ed. Gebhardt, Leipzig, 1875).

     In the Latin Church important commentaries were written, after the time of Jerome on whom many depend, by Bonaventura, Nicol, Lyranus, Denys the Carthusian, and above all by Pineda (seventeenth cent.), by Maldonatus, Cornelius a Lapide, and Bossuet.
     Modern Catholic commentaries: SchÄfer (Freiburg im Br., 1870); Motais (Paris, 1876); Rambouillet (Paris, 1877); Gietmann (Paris, 1890); Zapletal (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1905).
     Protestant commentaries: ZÖckler, tr. Taylor (Edinburgh, 1872); Bullock, in Speaker's Comment. (London, 1883); Cambridge Bible (1881); Wright, (London, 1883); LeimdÖrfer, (Hamburg, 1892); Siegfried (Göttingen, 1898); Wildeboer (Freiburg im Br., 1898).

G. G IETMANN

Ecclesiastical Art

Before speaking in detail of the developments of Christian art from the beginning down to the present day, it seems natural to say something in regard to the vexed question as to the source of its inspiration. It would not be possible here to treat adequately all the various theories which have been propounded, but the essentials of the controversy may be given in a few words. Afterwards there will be some mention of the principal works which Christian antiquity has left to us and a setting forth of the influence of the Catholic Church in stimulating and directing that artistic spirit which for so many centuries it alone was destined to keep alive.

ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN ART

There has been much discussion of late years as to the influences which were predominant in the development of early Christian art. Professor Wickhoff in a striking essay (Roman Art, tr., 1900) has contended that in the first century after Christ a distinctively Roman style was evolved both in painting and sculpture, the salient features of which he characterizes as impressionist or "illusionist". He marks several stages in the growth of this style, and claims for it especially the creation of what he calls the continuous method of composition, i. e. a method by which several successive stages of the same history are depicted together in a single painting. Further, he contends that this Roman style was adopted by the first Christian artists and that, though obscured and weakened, it persuaded the Roman world and maintained its identity throughout the Middle Ages until eventually it quickened again into fuller life under the stimulus of the Renaissance.

This view, an exaggeration of the Romanist hypothesis which long held the field has been severely criticized by many competent authorities and notably by Strzygowski ("Orient oder Rom", 1901, and "Kleinasien", 1903), who attributes the predominantly influence in the development of Christian art to the recrudescence of purely Oriental feeling. This, as he maintained, had always survived at Byzantium, Antioch and Alexandria, and it became operative once more when the Graeco-Roman artistic tradition at Rome had exhausted itself after the effort of a few centuries. Though Strzygowski may go too far when he claims that even the art of the Romanized provinces like Gaul came from the East direct and not through Rome, it seems highly probable that his contention is in substance accurate enough.

To Rome no doubt must be assigned the prevalence of the basilica type of church and the first effective conception of the possibilities of stone vaulting. But the transference of the seat of government by Honorius in 404 from Rome to Ravenna and the confusion that arose in the Western Roman Empire, had far-reaching consequences upon the development of art. If Rome was at all times the seat of the papacy, the vicars of Christ had not at this early date acquired any preponderating influence in the social and civil affairs of the Western world, while more than a hundred years after this beginning with the seventh century, no less than thirteen pontiffs who occupied in succession the chair of St. Peter were of Greek or Syrian origin. But what is perhaps most important of all, the Latin stock who occupied what was once the great city, but what now became only a provincial town, were morally and intellectually effete. The motive power for a new development was to come from outside. The impetuous energy of the Teutonic tribes of the North was full of latent possibilities for the arts of peace, when that energy was once diverted from the strenuous occupations of a time of war. Once again "Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit", but it was Greece enriched this time with the inheritance of Antioch, Ephesus, and Alexandria, while the culture that now travelled west. and north found ultimately a more responsive soil than it had ever met with in Latium. In its adoption by Goths, Franks, and Saxons the art of Byzantium lost its rigidity, and something of its formalism. It was a living germ which soon developed an independent growth, and long before the Renaissance once more directed the minds of men to classic models, not only architecture and sculpture, but the arts of the painter, the iron-worker, the goldsmith. and the glass founder were full of vigorous life and promise throughout all Western Europe. The earliest specimens of decorations employed for a Christian purpose are found in the Roman catacombs. In the most ancient examples of all the private chambers used for Christian interment in the first and second centuries, there is decoration indeed, but it is only in a negative sense that it can be called Christian art, for while the abundant frescoes seen in the cemetery of Domitilla and notably in the cubiculum of Ampliatus exclude such pagan elements as would be unseemly, the character of the painting is in every respect the counterpart of the ornamentation of the contemporary private houses buried at Pompeii. There is nothing distinctively Christian. Perhaps the frequent recurrence of the vine as a principal element in the scheme of decoration may have been meant to suggest the thought of Christ, the true vine, but even this is doubtful. Symbolism occurs early, but it can only be recognized with confidence in the more public cemeteries of the second century, e. g. that of St. Callistus; here, under the influence of the "Discipline of the Secret", it is hardly wrong to recognize the true beginnings of a distinctively Christian art. No doubt this art in a most marked degree was imitative of the more decent forms of pagan decoration familiar at the period. It seems constantly to be forgotten by those who discuss this subject that it was the deliberate object of the early Christians, during the ages of suspicion and persecution to exclude from their places of sepulture all that would by its conspicuousness or strangeness attract the notice of the casual pagan intruder. No wonder that the theme of the Good Shepherd in introduced again and again in the fresco decorations of the early catacombs. This is no indication as rationalist critics have sometimes pretended, of the survival of an idolatrous mythology, but the very likeness of the beardless Good Shepherd to the type of the pagan Hermes Kriophorus -- a likeness, however, which is never so exact as to lead to real confusion -- constituted its recommendation to those who wished to hide their distinctive practices from the prying eyes of the people around them. In the same way the Orante, or praying figure, symbolical of the Church or the individual soul, bore a general resemblance to the statues of Pietas, familiar enough to the ordinary Roman citizen, while the dove, which was to the Christian eloquent of the grace of the Holy Spirit, would not have been distinguished by his pagan neighbour from the birds consecrated to Venus. The deeper mysteries of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments were still more artfully veiled in the frescoes of those early centuries. No doubt the fish was an object familiar enough in all kinds of pagan decoration, but that very fact rendered it most suitable for the purpose of the Christian when he wished to symbolize the marvellous workings of Christ (Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter = ICHTHYS, the fish) in the waters of baptism. What again was more common in decoration than some form of banqueting scene -- a theme also often utilized by the worshippers of Mithra-- but these feasts depicted upon the walls of a sepulchral chamber had a far other and deeper significance for the Christian, who by some minute sign, the little cross, it may be, impressed upon the loaves, or the fishes which decked the frugal board, was quick to discern the reference to the life-giving mystery of the Blessed Eucharist. There are also human figures and Biblical scenes, especially those connected with the liturgy for the departed -- for example the miraculous restorations of Jonah and Daniel and Lazarus -- and in one or two isolated instances we may perhaps recognize a presentment of the Madonna, but the reference is always cryptic and only interpretable by the initiated. It was under these circumstances that the instinct of religious symbolism was developed when the art of the Church was yet in its infancy but the tradition thus created has never departed from true religious art throughout the ages. With the triumph of the Church under Constantine the necessity for the sedulous hiding of the mysteries of the Faith in large measure disappeared. From A. D. 313 to the end of the fifth century was a period of transformation and development in Christian art, and it may be conspicuously recognized upon the walls of the Roman catacombs. Biblical scenes abound, and the figure of Christ, no longer so frequently as the beardless Good Shepherd, but crowned with a nimbus and sitting or standing in the attitude of authority, is fearlessly introduced. The nimbus is also extended to others beside Christ, for example to Our Lady and some of the saints. Sculpture again, though in the catacombs the traces it has left are relatively few now for the first time becomes the helpmate of painting in the service of the Church. This is the age of the great Christian sarcophagi so wonderfully decorated with the figures of Christ and His Apostles and with biblical scenes still full of symbolic meaning. The old ways of the period of persecution had, it is plain, become not only familiar but dear to the body of the faithful. The allegorical method of representing the mysteries of the Faith did not disappear at once. But though with the triumph of Constantine the outline of the "chrisme" (chi-rho), or the Greek monogram of Christ, was universally held in honour and introduced into all Christian monuments and even into the coinage, the crucifix as a Christian emblem was as yet practically unknown. For more than a century the memory of the Sacrifice of Calvary was recalled to the minds of the faithful only by some such device as that of a plain cross impressed with the figure of a lamb. The first representations of the figure of the Saviour nailed upon the Rood, as we see it upon the carved doors of Sta. Sabina in Rome and in the British Museum ivory, belong probably to the fifth century, but for a long period after that this subject is very rarely found, and its occurrence in frescoes or mosaics is hardly recorded anywhere before the time of Justinian (527 - 565).

MOSAICS AND OTHER EARLY CHRISTIAN ARTS

To find the beginning of the use of colour in the Roman Empire to anything like an important extent, we must look at the Roman pavements composed of myriads of tesserae, and representing in a flat and somewhat uninteresting manner mystic beings, extraordinary animals, fruits, flowers, and designs. Between these Roman pavements and one branch of the earliest Christian art, that of mosaic, there is a very close connexion. It seems also possible that some of the early efforts of the art of the Christian Church are to be found in the decorations of gold on glass which have been discovered in the catacombs. Upon these glasses dating from the third to the fifth century, are found representations of Christ and of the Apostles, as well as drawings in gold-leaf, partly symbolic and partly realistic, referring to the miracles of Christ, the emblems of the Seven Spirits, a future life, and the events narrated in the New Testament. Simple and archaic as these are, yet many of them show considerable beauty. The primitive Church included within itself, not only the poor and humble, but persons of distinction, rank, and attainment, and it is clear from an examination of these drawings that some were executed by those who were in possession of considerable artistic skill, and who had been trained in a knowledge of Greek and Roman art. Contemporaneous with these, and earlier, are frescoes painted upon the walls of the catacombs, including portraits of the Apostles and of Christ, representations of the martyrs, naive pictures of the scenes from the Holy Bible, and simple illuminatory symbolism. Then, between the fourth and tenth centuries there is a long series of mosaics, in which for the first time strong evidence appears of a sense of colour. A few specimens of these mosaics adorned the catacombs, afterwards they are found in the oratories and places of worship of the primitive Church. It was speedily recognized that mosaic decoration possessed certain strong claims to attention, such as other methods of decoration lacked. While the artist himself must be responsible for fresco work, very much of the labour in mosaic decoration could be left to persons of subordinate position, and once the artist had drawn out the pattern and scheme which was to cover, for instance, the apse of the church, the actual manual labour of fitting in the tesserae could be done by workmen. Then, again, there was the quality of imperishability; the mosaic was as permanent, an actual part of the structure which it decorated; it did not vary in colour by reason of light or atmosphere. and could be cleansed from time to time. It was also capable of strong, broad effects, rendering it peculiarly suitable to positions at the end of a building, somewhat above the line of sight, and its colour could be made so emphatic and so brilliant that the darkest of curves or hollows could be lit up by its luminous beauty. It is small wonder, therefore, that from the very earliest period the Church drew to itself the skilful workers in mosaic, and employed them, as can be seen by the wonderful remains at Ravenna, in Sicily, on Mount Athos, near Constantinople, and notably at Rome, to decorate the interiors of the basilicas, and to portray upon their walls the emblems of the Divine tragedy, of the Sufferings of Christ and of His saints, or to represent in hieratic magnificence the figures of Christ in his glory, or in benediction, so that the scenes might be well in sight of all the worshippers within the little churches. From the representation of single figures at the end of the church, the work speedily spread to more elaborate adornment of the walls and from the simplicity of a single emblem, a single figure, the artistic spirit grew until it represented in pictorial effect the parables and miracles of Christ, or spread long triumphant processions of virgins, Apostles, martyrs, along the walls of the aisles and transepts of the larger churches. There is no city in Europe in which this earliest Christian art can be so well studied as at Ravenna. The difficult of approaching the place in its out-of-the-way position has enabled it to retain and preserve the monument which it is so rich, and which relate so exclusively to its early history. The baptistery dates back to the last years of the fourth century and was later ornamented in mosaic. There is in it a representation of the Baptism of Christ, and a circle of the Twelve Apostles; the figures, of surpassing dignity, appear to move round the dome with a swing and grace very remarkable in effect. Another circle of mosaic decorations in the same building represents the four Books of the Gospels open upon four altars, and between them four thrones of dominion with crosses; these mosaics have never been restored, and are in the condition in which their makers left them. The huge font intended for baptism by immersion, which stands below them, is proof of their antiquity, but the actual inscription of dedication with its date still exists on the metal cross surmounting the building. In the chapel of the archbishop in the archiepiscopal palace are mosaics of the fifth century made during the reign of archbishop St. Peter Chrysologus, while in the tomb of the Empress Galla Placidia are mosaic decorations of her period; unfortunately, many of these latter works have been restored. The very finest mosaics in Ravenna, however relate to the great heresy of Arianism. In the time of Theodoric, the old heresy was beginning once more to make itself felt. Arius had long been dead, Athanasius had fought his courageous battle against the Arian heresy, the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople had been held, and had pronounced against it, and the Nicene doctrine had been confirmed, so that within the Church the heresy could no longer exist, but outside the Catholic Church there were still those who practiced it. When Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths, came into power, Arianism became once more a force to be reckoned with, and the emperor erected a cathedral and a baptistery at Ravenna for his Arian bishops. It is in the church now called Sant' Apollinare Nuovo, which was new more than a thousand years ago, that the great rhythmic array of saints and virgins alluded to above exists, the greater part of it as it was when Theodoric erected the church fourteen centuries ago. In the baptistery of the Arians, near by, the mosaics upon the roof were put in place practically after the baptistery became Catholic, and therefore date from about 550. It is not only, however, in mosaics, that Ravenna illustrates the early art of the Church; one of its great treasures, the ivory chair of St. Maximianus (546-556), made in the first half of the sixth century, has been in the city since it was first carved with the exception of a very short time when it was carried to Venice in 1001. It is perhaps the finest example in existence of such ivory carving, and was the work of Oriental craftsmen who entered into the service of the Church and carved this chair with its delicate and beautiful illustrations of the miracles of Christ and the history of Joseph. The same city can illustrate other branches of applied art for the orphreys and textile fabrics made for San Giovanni in the fifth century, the sixth-century altar-cross of the archbishop, St. Agnellus (556-659), his processional cross of silver, and portions of his cathedral choir are still preserved in the cathedral, while the art of carving in marble of the same period is exceedingly well exemplified by the splendid stone sarcophagi existing in various churches of the city. Following the time of Theodoric came the rule of the Emperor Justinian (527-565), and the episcopate of St. Ecclesius (521-34), while the mosaic decoration in the church of San Vitale, done in the early and middle part of the sixth century, illustrate the change from Arian heresy to Catholic truth, and the exquisite beauty of the mosaic work the Church was able to make use of at that time. A little journey outside Ravenna to the church of Sant' Apollinare in Classe will enable the student to bring his study of early mosaic work and earlier sculpture down to a still later period, as in that church there is the great mosaic erected by Archbishop Reparatus c. 671, the curved throne of St. Damianus (668-705), and the sarcophagi of various archbishops, extending in date to the end of the seventh century, and bearing religious emblems of very considerable importance. Attention should also be drawn to the pictures on unprepared linen cloth, executed in a material similar to transparent watercolour, ascribed to a period antecedent to the third century, they chiefly purport to be representations of the features of Christ. The most notable of course is the one known as the Handkerchief of St. Veronica, preserved in the Vatican, and which none but an ecclesiastic of very high rank is allowed to examine closely. Although the most important, it is by no means the only example of such a picture. There is another in Genoa, a third in the church of San Silvestro in Rome, and others in various European shrines. The metal work executed during the Ostrogothic occupation of Italy was often work commissioned by the Church for use in the ceremonials of the service, and figures of Christ and of the saints, ornaments for copes, chasses in which to put relics, and vessels for use at the altar, belonging to this period of primitive art are the direct result of the teaching of the Church. As, however, the religious feeling, spread more and more, the desire arose among Christians to have artistic representations of the great events of the Faith in their houses, and it is possible that the beginnings of what we may term portable pictorial work arose in this way. The very early tempera paintings on wood of Eastern and Byzantine character, some of which are actually ascribed to the hand of the Apostle St. Luke himself, may very likely have been executed, not entirely as decorations for the Church, but that the wealthier members of the community, at least, might have in their homes, in the privacy of their own oratories, some cherished representation of the Man of Sorrows himself, or of some Apostle or saint from whom the owner was named, or towards whom he had some particular affection. In this way may perhaps be traced the beginning of the history of the icons which are so important a feature in the life of the Eastern Church, and which adorn every house, in many cases being found in all the rooms occupied by the various members of the family.

ECCLESIASTICAL ART IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Leaving primitive times, the period of the Middle Ages is one of enormous artistic importance, and it is an era in which the influence of the Church is practically paramount. To this period there does not belong any very long series of artistic objects relating exclusively to domestic life. There were, of course, articles of domestic interest marked by artistic skill, there were objects of personal decoration and appliances for use in the home; but the choicest talent and the efforts of the most supreme genius were almost invariably given to the work of the Church, and even where the commissions related to domestic ornamentation, there was generally a religious element in the decorations and the use of religious symbolisms. To this period belong the magnificent work in enamels executed for church work. There are the tall pricket candlesticks, superb chasses and reliquaries, altar-crosses, crosiers, shrines, censers and incense boats, crucifixes, morses for copes and medallions for sacred vessels, triptychs and polyptychs for use on the altar, plaques for book-covers, especially for the adornment of the Book of the Gospels cruets, basins, chalices, and book-binding in metal encrusted with jewels. The very first British enamels were merely a kind of coarse decoration, applied to the adornment of shields and helmets, but later on to cups, vases, and drinking-vessels, but, when mention is made of the Ardagh Chalice and the Alfred Jewel, it will be realized that a period in enamel work has been reached. When the Church laid its hand upon the craft. Concerning the use of the Alfred Jewel, it may be broadly stated that the most probable theory is that it was the ornament applied to the head of an ivory pointer used by the deacon when reading the Book of the Gospels, and that therefore this exquisite object now in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford is one of the earliest examples of ecclesiastical enamel work. The Ardagh Chalice, of translucent enamels on silver and gold, is only one of a group of Irish shrines, reliquaries, missal-covers, crosiers, and crosses, similarly decorated, and it would appear likely that these Irish or Celtic enamels, of which half a dozen adorn the altar of Sant' Ambrogio in Milan, are perhaps among the earliest existing examples of the art in connexion with ecclesiastical possessions. In the first part of the eleventh century, Byzantium appears to have been the headquarters of the work of ecclesiastical enameling, and the pectoral cross in the South Kensington Museum maybe taken as an example of early Byzantine work. The art of the enameller was also in existence in Germany at an early date, and here also was applied exclusively to ecclesiastical objects. Towards the middle of the twelfth century the workers of Limoges came into prominence, and from that time down to the end of the thirteenth Limoges was the centre of production. In Italian enameling, the wonderful translucent reliquary, dated 1338, the work of Ugolino of Siena, in which is preserved the great relic of the Holy Corporal at Orvieto, is a masterpiece of the craft. The altar-frontal at Pistoja belongs to about the same period, and a little later comes the reliquary made by the brothers Arezzo, while during the whole of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the enamellers were kept hard at work in Italy producing objects intended for Church work in two or three distinct processes, either that called champleve, or another method, that of floating transparent enamels, known by the name of bassetaille, or still another process called encrusting. At the end of the fifteenth century, and the beginning of the sixteenth, in the era of the Renaissance, the art left Italy, and, taking a new form, that of painted enamels, or more strictly, painting in enamels, had a recrudescence in France in the very same place, Limoges, in which the old enamels had been produced. In another division of applied arts are the remarkable embroideries which adorned all the sacred vestments, representing in the most wonderful pictorial effect, groups of saints, sacred scenes, and religious symbols. On the chasubles, copes, albs, stoles, maniples, burses, veils, mitres, frontals, super- frontals, and altar-covers, palls, bags, and panels of that period, are to be seen triumphs of artistic excellence, worked with exceeding beauty, and with a glorious richness of colour, by the hands of the faithful women of the day and designed by the men of supreme genius whom the Church had attracted to her side. Some of the very finest of this embroidery work was English, and references are found to the dignity of English embroidery before the end of the seventh century, as, St. Aldhelm Bishop of Sherborne, celebrated in verse the skilful work of the Anglo-Saxon embroideresses. Indeed, at one time, rather too much attention in the convents for women seems to have been given to this fascinating needlework, for a council held in 747 recommended that the reading of books and psalm-singing by the nuns should receive greater attention, and that not quite so many hours should be spent in needlework. As early as 855 the Anglo-Saxon King Ethelwulf when journeying to Rome took with him as presents silken vestments richly embroidered in gold, executed in his own country, and there are vestments of a stole and maniple, found in the tomb of St. Cuthbert (d. 687) which were produced under the auspices of the wife of Edward the Elder in 916 and placed in the saint's coffin. From that time down to the middle of the sixteenth century there was a constant demand for the work of the skilled embroideresses, and this section of art, so particularly suitable to ecclesiastical purposes, was one of perennial richness. It is well that some stress should be laid upon the question of embroidery, inasmuch as in the Middle Ages it was almost exclusively a branch of ecclesiastical art, and nearly everything that can be termed of importance in fine embroidery, especially in fine English embroidery previous to the fifteenth century, was executed for the Church. Enormous labour was given to the production of these beautiful vestments, and as an example it may be mentioned that a frontal presented to the Abbey of Westminster in 1271 took the whole labour of four women for three years and three-quarters. Lincoln Cathedral in the fourteenth century possessed over six hundred vestments in its sacristy, while the Abbey of Westminster had very nearly double as many, and even the English churches were far behind those of Spain in the sumptuous manner in which they were supplied with vestments. There was therefore every possible necessity for the work, and no branch of art has a greater importance between the twelfth and the fifteenth centuries than has this one of embroidery. Fortunately, a sufficient number of the old vestments have come down to the present day to give a satisfactory idea of their importance and beauty and the records and inventories of church goods prior to the sixteenth century afford still further information concerning this branch of art. The spirit of devotion which has ever given the instinct to decorate the house of God with the very finest works of which man is capable led to this lavish display of artistic genius in the service of the Catholic Church, but it must also be borne in mind that there were other, subordinate causes to account for the work. The Church, following its Divine Master, has always inculcated the importance of good works and it has ever encouraged the faithful to give to its service of their best. If their skill was in metal-work, in embroidery, in carving wooden figures or wonderful choir-stalls, in stained glass, in jewelry, in fresco or in mosaic such skill was to be devoted to God's service as the choicest gift the artist had to lay upon the altar symbolic of his devotion to his faith. Even beyond that, there came the occasions in which the penance for sin took the form of the devotion of artistic gifts to the work of the Church, and the other and very numerous cases in which this artistic labour was the constant employment of those persons who had devoted their entire life to the religious career, in the various monastic houses belonging to the different orders. One further cause must not be overlooked, the fact that it was the Crown, the clergy, and the nobility who alone could command, by reason of their means, the splendid productions of the men of genius of the time, and that while the commissions given by the clergy would most certainly be for church purposes almost exclusively, those given by the Crown and the higher nobility were in almost all instances for exactly the same purposes, and this for a double reason. First, the desire to render the home beautiful had not yet arisen to any considerable extent, and secondly, there was every wish to make the private chapel or oratory, the public church or royal sanctuary, as beautiful as possible, both to carry out the instincts of the religious feeling and please those who held control of spiritual things, as well as to heap up a reward for good deeds which would have a corresponding equivalent in the future life and might serve as retribution for the deeds of violence that formed so integral a part of the life of these centuries. The period under consideration was not so much one of portable pictures as of applied art, devoted to the interior decoration of the sacred buildings and to every object having connexion with the service of the altar. One section of ecclesiastical art deserving special mention concerns almost exclusively the monastic orders, namely, that of illumination and transcription. All over Europe the monks of the pre-Renaissance time were engaged in preparing the books of the day and these books were almost exclusively religious ones. The number of those concerning domestic matters, agriculture, or the classics, transcribed by these diligent students, is relatively small, but the series of religious works from their diligent pens is an exceedingly long one. Their time was fully occupied in preparing manuscripts for use within the cloisters and for the service of the altar, as well as for the great, patrons of the monasteries who desired to have books of devotion for their own use, or for gifts to other sovereigns or noblemen. These manuscripts are of incomparable beauty, being transcribed with extraordinary skill upon the finest of vellum, and adorned with initial letters, calendars, and illustrations, that are triumphs of artistic skill, and marvels of ingenuity. The Books of Hours, Missals, Breviaries, and Psalters having their origin in the monastic houses of England, France, Germany, and Italy during the Middle Ages are now among the greatest artistic treasures of the world and with regard to them there is one very striking fact which must never be overlooked. This does not relate exclusively to books of devotion, it belongs nearly as much to every work of art produced during this period, and it is the fact that these triumphs of skill are for the most part anonymous. In the period hardly any great names are recorded in connexion with such work. There is a wonderful series of artistic treasures, but signatures scarcely ever exist. Here and there the name of an enameller is known or perchance the name of the place where he worked, occasionally the name of a wood-carver or a worker in stained glass has been preserved and there are just a few cases in which the name of the zealous monk who toiled over the manuscript is known, but the instances are exceedingly few, and they occur, one might say, by accident rather than by intention. With respect to illuminations in books of devotion, one monk took up the task where the other had left it. Death caused no cessation of the self-imposed labour. The orders could never die, and as in the present day great literary works are undertaken by the leading orders, in the full knowledge that to carry them out will extend far beyond the life of the writer who begins the undertaking, but that his successor will be equally able to continue the task. So in the earlier days the monks laboured in their cloisters, each at his own work; each generation of monks in the footsteps of the former, hiding the individual identity in the name of the order and content, as the work was done for the greater glory of God, that while the work should remain, the monks themselves should be forgotten. Few things are more striking in considering this period than the singleness of aim and devotion to duty which characterized these artists and led them to have no desire to perpetuate their own names, but simply to carry out to the best of their abilities, the allotted task for the glory of God and His Church. Partly, of course, the reason was that the dignity of personal labour was not fully realized, but the reason for this anonymity lies mainly in the facts already stated, that the work was religious work that the aim was a religious aim, and that the identity of the person did not matter, so long as the Church mas properly served by her faithful. There is one other aspect of the artistic work of the pre-Renaissance time to be alluded to. It is by no means confined to the pre-Renaissance period, but extends through the succeeding centuries, and it should extend to all the artistic labour of the present day, but it is more especially a feature of the period under discussion. It is that determination which is nearer satisfied with the work which has been done, but which is always straining forward for finer and better work. It is that element of untiring energy and ever-quickening desire for perfection which has always characterized the greatest art-workers of the world, and it finds its earliest and perhaps its strongest development in this period. The early Italian painters fall into two groups: the first, that which may be called the group of the miniaturists or illuminators, as, for example, Enrico, Berlinghieri, and Oderico; the second, the very primitive painters, such as, Margaritone, Spinello, Uccello, Cimabue, Duccio, Memmi, Lorenzetti, and the various early masters of the schools of Siena, Padua, and Verona. The predecessors of these artists for the most part, worked without any reference to nature, under Byzantine influence, copying slavishly the methods fixed by the Greek Church. Their pictures, whether they illustrated scenes from the Sacred Writings, the legends of the Church, or the lives of the saints, were designed and painted according to fixed rules. Their work was inferior to that of the Byzantine workers in mosaic, but followed the same conceptions of art; in every way, in attitudes, compositions, types of face, folds of drapery, and even as regards colour, it was guided by the definite rules of tradition, so that the painter was little more than a mechanic. Still, despite what may be termed the ugliness of this particular school, there was a strong spirit of devotion exercising the minds of the artists, and they were able to put a certain amount of sympathy into their hard, angular productions, thus showing that their works were painted with religious sentiment, and with a desire to evoke that sentiment in others. Margaritone was one of the first to break through the hard crust of rules, and although his work does not show any very striking advance upon that of his predecessors, yet in his pictures and in those of the earliest painters of Siena, we begin to find the desire to paint a Mother of God bearing some living semblance to a Mother of Man. There is a struggling towards tenderness and sweetness of countenance, a desire to represent raiment gently floating in easy curves, and a greater command of sentiment, together with a simplicity in story-telling, which mark this primitive school, and prepare the was for the forerunner of natural treatment, Giotto himself.

PERIOD OF THE RENAISSANCE

The great era of transition from the Middle Ages to modern times which is called the Renaissance may be divided into the three periods of the Early Renaissance, Full Renaissance, and Late Renaissance. Here again the influence of the Church is found just as strong and as defined as in the past. The growing desire to have magnificent churches created the necessity for other workers in art. The first wears of this period give in Italy the earliest workers known by name in fresco, and in portable pictures, Cimabue, Orcagna, Giotto, and others. In their "frescoed theology", decorating the churches of Assisi, Siena, Pisa and other parts of Italy, is seen the beginning of the long list of painters whom the Church enlisted in her service. In bronze work Ghiberti produced the gates of the baptistery of Florence and with the appearance of Brunelleschi a new school of architecture for ecclesiastical buildings arose. In this period belongs also the introduction of printing and here again, just as emphatically, the Church took the lead. The earliest printers mere Churchmen belonging to a religious order the earliest books those of religion -- the first actual printed sheet being the Indulgence of Pope Nicholas V -- followed by a long list of religious and liturgical works, Sacred Scriptures, and patristic literature. In the Low Countries the Van Eycks developed the methods of oil-painting and there arose a great school of artists, among whom were Van der Goes, Van der Weyden, Bouts, Cristus, Memling, and others who formed the transition from the Gothic school. Their most important works were altarpieces, and in some cases all their paintings were of a religious character, while in others the paintings not religious were portraits of the various patrons who had commissioned the altar-pieces, or who had their own private chapels decorated by these artists, therefore the intimate connexion between art and the Church was just as close as ever Towards the close of the Early Renaissance period is found the work in sculpture of Donatello and those of his school, Desiderio da Settignano, the Rossellini, Duccio, Verrochio, and Mino da Fiesole almost all the fine work of these men was for ecclesiastical purposes. Here and there are single detached statues, as for example the one of St. George by Donatello, but then it must be remembered that these were figures of saints, and intended for buildings more or less of a religious character, or for those erected by guilds distinctly religious, while some of the sculptors named, as for example Duccio of Perugia, were only known by the work they executed for the decoration of churches. During this period among the workers in Germany were Adam Kraft, Veit Stoss, and the Vischers, who are associated with the superb tabernacle, the series of Stations of the Cross and the great bronze shrine in Nuremberg, all objects intimately connected with religious work. In England, the tomb of Henry VI and that of Henry VII by Torrigiano, both at Westminster must not be overlooked. Every branch of artistic craftsmanship was at this time employed for the benefit fit of the Church. Finiguerra, Ghiberti, and others were at work at the great silver altar of the Florentine baptistery. The jewelers, Ghirlandajo, Verrochio and Francia were making jewels for altar vestments, medals for the great ecclesiastics, and pictures for the churches, Luca della Robbia was preparing his vitrified enamel medallions, that he might present the Blessed Virgin and her Child in attitudes of the most perfect tenderness on the exteriors of the churches and on the corners of the streets, while other potters were marking the sacred emblems on their finest productions, or painting religious scenes upon their vases and majolica plates. The Arras tapestries of France the English tapestries of Coventry, and the Van Eyck tapestries of Flanders, were being woven for the hangings of the churches, while Benedetto da Maiano was bringing his intarsia work to perfection that he might apply it to the decoration of the choir-stalls in the great churches of Italy. It was at this time that the great monastic painter Fra Angelico decorated the cells of San Marco with his perfect representations of the great events in the Divine Tragedy, while Gozzoli, Lippi, and Ghirlandajo adorned the churches, and Perugino, Pinturicchio, Francia, Albertinelli and Fra Bartolomeo, almost exclusively religious painters, prepared those masterpieces of religious art to set upon the altars of the private chapels and great churches of the day, that are now among the treasured masterpieces of all time. This era was also the period of Humanism, of the return to the love of the classics. It may be difficult in this complex period to mark the boundary line between religion and that strange paganism which was an emblem of the classical revival, but the Certosa of Pavia and the work of the early German painters, represented by such men as Schongauer and the elder Holbein, mark that side by side with the Humanistic movement there was a strong religious one. In this religious movement art had its full share, and engaged in its tasks, not perhaps with the austere simplicity and singleness of aim which belonged to an earlier period, but still with a definite determination that the best products of artistic craftsmanship should be devoted to the service of God. There was, however, a growing desire that the home should be more beautiful and more luxurious. The decoration of churches was ceasing to be the sole aim of the art-worker, and he was finding other fields, but the chief encouragement of art still came from the Church and for the Church, and even upon domestic work the Church set her hand and seal. The period of the Full Renaissance may be taken as lasting from 1450 to 1550, and here must be noticed the advent of a new movement in art, or at least a stronger development of what had undoubtedly begun to arise in the previous century. Hitherto, in pictorial art, notably in that of Italy the aims had been form drawing, composition, devotion and the expression of spiritual conceptions rather than colour; but in the Venetian School, that took its rise in the earlier century with the first Bellini, Carpaccio and Crivelli, and that was to see its development at this time in the later Bellini, Giorgione, Titian, Paolo Veronese, and Tintoretto, the claims of colour gain a supremacy over the kindred branches of pictorial art. The Venetian School is the one in which brilliant colour attains to its apotheosis; and everything else is subservient to it. The simplicity of aim which characterized such a man as Fra Angelico passed away, the devotional feeling that marked the works of Albertinelli and Fra Bartolomeo gave place to an overpowering desire for decoration as such, and in Venice, although the Church commissioned the great altar-pieces and the schemes of interior ornamentation for which these noble artists were responsible, it had to be content to accept Venetian tradition and to see religious scenes treated as gorgeous pieces of sumptuously coloured decoration. Although there might not be the simplicity of a past generation, yet there still existed in the artists the same desire to offer to the Church the greatest works of their genius. In this period of the Full Renaissance are found the work of Raphael and of Michelangelo; of Clouet, Mabuse, and Scorel; of Durer, Holbein, and Cranach; of Leonardo da Vinci and of Correggio, while in applied arts there was immense industry and great development. The German metal-workers and goldsmiths prepared church vessels innumerable; Cellini and Caradosso produced ornaments for church vestments; the screen and the woodwork for King's College Chapel, Cambridge typified the ecclesiastical wood-carving of the time in England; while the stained-glass windows at King's College Chapel, in other chapels, and in great churches show ecclesiastical art. The fall of Florence marked the close of the period of great art in that city while the paintings and tapestry executed for Francis I at Fontainebleau, for Lewis at Tours, and some sculpture done by Michelangelo for the Medici Chapel, all point out the enhanced power of the Humanistic movement and the destruction of that devotion to faith which had been so marked a feature of the earlier centuries. The epoch of the Late Renaissance, extending from 1500 to 1600, and overlapping that of the Full Renaissance was still, however, distinguished by a considerable amount of earnest religious fervour in art. The paintings of Luini, Gaudenzio Ferrari, Andra del Sarto, Sodoma. Bronzino, and Peruzzi, are strongly religious, full of right feeling, and almost exclusively done for churches, religious houses, guild chapels, and private oratories, but outside of Italy the connexion between the Church and art is by no means so apparent. Spanish supremacy in Northern Europe had been destroyed, and 1576 was marked by the rapid decline of Spain. The Iberian goldsmiths and iron-workers still certainly produced their famous grilles, jewels, morses, chalices, and crucifixes while in needle-work the finest workers of Castile were elaborating some of the most perfect examples of church vestments that have ever been produced. In bronze, the smiths of Aragon were casting superb church candelabra, and some of the weavers in France and England were producing tapestry decoration for churches; but the greater part of the Gobelin, Brussels, and Mortlake tapestry-weaving; was for domestic use, the greatest architects were working on domestic architecture, the potters on domestic pottery, and the printers and engravers upon work which cannot be termed religious. The names of certain men stand out, however, as representing persons of deep personal religion, who brought their own devotion to duty to bear upon the work they executed. Such men were Giulio Romano, Palladio, and the Behaims, but the period of that supreme hold which the Church had retained upon the art of the world, which she had initiated, developed, and encouraged, was passing away, never more to appear in its full fruition. Some reference should be made to the system under which during this time many of the great decorative schemes of Italian painting were executed. The encouragement which the Church gave to the Italian painters took various forms. It was permissible for an influential or a wealthy family to have allotted to it a small chapel in the large parish or town church, and the decoration of the chapel was left to the care of the family whose name it received. In some cases, these chapels were built onto the church, and in such instances an architect, a builder, a decorator, and an artist were all employed. and the Church gladly gave permission for such additions to the church structure, in order that the family might have a meeting-place and an opportunity to make an endowment for perpetual Masses for its deceased members. In cases where a new structure was not erected, a portion of the existing church was enclosed as a private chapel. perhaps in memory of a father, a mother, or some children and a painter of repute was called in to devise a scheme of decoration for its walls, in which would be introduced the figures of saints to whom the deceased persons had been dedicated, or scenes from the lives of such saints; in many cases life-size figures of the saints were represented with their hands upon the kneeling figures of the donors of the chapel. There was no thought of an anachronism; it was considered perfectly right that representations of persons who had died but a few weeks or months before should be introduced into the scenes in which the saints of early church history were depicted. It then became the ambition of later members to add to the beauty of the family chapel as means allowed. The walls having been decorated, an altar-piece would be painted by another artist, while perhaps, following him, yet a third would ornament the front of the altar, or craftsmen would be called in to supply objects used in the sacred service or vestments and books for the priests. In this way these little chapels became shrines for artistic work, the productions of mans hands. representing the desires of many persons to place the best of work at the service of the Church, to act dutifully towards the family itself, and to make a suitable offering in recompense for crimes committed. Another course sometimes adopted was to call in two painters, rivals in their profession to decorate different walls of a church, or the two sides of an altar-piece, or again, when some great addition was made to the fabric on account of an important event, such as the canonization of a local saint, or a marked interposition of Providence on behalf of the town, different influential persons in the place would undertake to be responsible for portions of the building, each calling in his own favourite painter and in this way the work would be completed. Or it might be that an order desired to decorate a church dedicated to its patron saint, and the commission would be given to some notable artist, who perhaps was unable to complete the task or who died before its completion. In such cases, others were called in to complete it, and in this way the fabric was beautified by various successive hands. The number of definitely personal commissions which the sixteenth-century artist had was small, as even in the instances where a patron ordered a picture, it was generally an altar-piece for the family chapel, or else the decoration of some building belonging to the trade guild to which he was attached, and this trade guild being nearly always a religious association, the commission came under the category of religious work. It is all this which marks the great distinction between art and craftsmanship previous to the sixteenth century and after it. In the period from the triumph of Christianity to about 1260 in Italy, and about 1460 in Northern Europe, the dominant art is architecture, chiefly employed in the service of the Church, and the arts of painting and carving were only applied subordinated for its enrichment. During the Renaissance period the imitative arts, sculpture, painting, and the various art-crafts began to develop and detach themselves, to exist and strive after perfection on their own account, and while architecture still held an important position, it was no longer dominant, the arts which supplied the interior decoration of the building, and the objects needed in the service of the Church ceased to be considered as subordinate, but were taking each its own high position under the guidance of workers of supreme genius. From the period, however, of the Full Renaissance the great dignity of architecture begins to diminish, especially as regards ecclesiastical buildings, and architects devoted themselves almost exclusively to domestic and civic work. Architecture ceased to be personal, democratic, local, and became professional and more or less uniform throughout the whole of Europe, while it suffered severely because the designing of detail became in many, cases the work of others than the executant workmen. The same sort of difficulty was befalling the pictorial art and the arts of the craftsmen. The personal element was no longer the main strength of an art The ecclesiastical side of the work was almost non-existent, and the crafts suffered by reason of the fact that the commercial element had entered into art and the adornment of the house, the palace, and the person was considered of far greater importance than the adornment of the church, and the sacrifice of the life of the worker for the greater glory of God.

POST-RENAISSANCE PERIOD

There are certain political explanations of this great change between the art of the sixteenth and the art of the seventeenth century. There were several forces at work which were hostile or indifferent to artistic development, such as the religious, dynastic and commercial wars, the difficulties of the Reformation, and constitutional problems, while the grouping together of small towns into larger provinces and countries was doing away with the rivalry of the craftsmen in the smaller places, and permitting a spirit of greater uniformity in style to spread throughout a large section of Europe. Add to all these colonial expansion, huge enterprise, and great commercial prosperity, constantly broken into by ravaging wars, and the causes for the decay of that spirit of religious activity in art characterizing earlier periods are apparent. Spain and Italy were, in the seventeenth century, almost the only two countries in which any close connection between art and the Church was kept up. England was troubled with the religious question, and struggling with great constitutional problems, while it had given itself over to the faith of the Reformers, and such art as it was producing was the great architectural triumph of Sir Christopher Wren in the rebuilding of the churches of London, and the various sections of craftsmanship concerned with the adornment of the house and the person. In Spain there were still some great goldsmiths at work, and some even greater workers in wrought iron, preparing the rejas for the Spanish cathedrals, while pictorial art was at its very highest in that country, and its masterpieces, with the exception of those of the very greatest artist of all, Velazquez, were devoted to subjects suggested by the Church. Yet there had been no country in which the painter had been so trammelled by traditional restrictions as in Spain. The very manner in which each saint was to be represented, the method in which his or her clothing was to be painted, and the colouring which was to be applied to each garment, had been a matter of stern decree. It had needed the profound genius of a Velazquez to break through the traditional rules, and to open for his successors, and especially for Murillo, a period of greater freedom. Commencing with such painters as Pantoja della Cruz and Vicente Carducci, the great Spanish School had produced the Ribaltas and Ribera, and then the majestic Velazquez. In Spain the only great painter to follow Velazquez was Murillo, but there were many whose works were marked by distinction, excellence, and beauty, especially Zurburan, Iriarte, Juan de Valdes, Alonso Cano, and Orrente. The seventeenth century was, in various countries of Europe, one of the important periods of artistic production, and although the Italian schools, the Realists, and the painters of the Second Revival were men whose productions at the present time are out of favour, yet they deserve more than a passing notice, while contemporary with them are others who rank among the veritable giants of the artistic craft. The late Italian artists, the Carracci, Caravaggio, Sasso Ferrato, Carlo Dolci, Domenichino, Luca Giordano, Carlo Maratta, Guido Reni, Salvator Rosa, and others, show in their work melodramatic style, love of magnificent colouring, and intense shades. The draughtsmanship of these artists should cause their works to be more highly esteemed than they are at present, for they certainly represent an important epoch in the art history of the world, and one which must never be overlooked. Many of their works were altar-pieces painted for churches, or were intended for church decoration, but at the same time they were greatly influenced by the Humanistic movement, and by the eager desire to represent the stories of classical writers in pictorial effect. The commercial prosperity of Holland, at a time when other nations were lacking in material wealth, was one of the reasons for the existence of a veritable crowd of artists just at this time. The Church had ceased to commission pictures in Holland, and very seldom were stories, either from the Bible, or from the lives of the saints, represented by this school of artists.

In dealing with the arts and crafts of the eighteenth century, a new and destructive factor which had arisen must be taken into consideration. "The genius of handicraft," as has been well said, "passes now into invention," and the commencement of a system now appears that was eventually to strike at the very roots of the manner in which supreme works of genius had been produced in the preceding centuries. It must also be noticed that, in painting especially, the artistic centre of gravity had shifted from Italy to England, and to a lesser extent to France, and that Italy Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands took but a very small share in the artistic development of the eighteenth century, instead of, as in preceding periods being the great centres of development themselves. The triumph of the home, however, in contradistinction to that of the Church, was now complete, and portraiture, whether concerning itself with the great decorative single figures or family groups of Reynolds and Gainsborough, or with the productions of the leading miniature painters, Cosway, Engleheart, Plimer, Smart, Hone, Wood, and their numerous followers, was exclusively applied to the multiplication of portraits of those persons who were able to afford to employ the artist, and who desired to possess and distribute to others such delightful representations as would adorn the home and the person. Ecclesiastical art, or art for the decoration of the church, had hardly any existence.

In England towards the middle of the nineteenth century a new movement having in it some of the instincts of earlier Italian art began to arise. The foremost artist of this new school was Sir Edward Burne-Jones. In the wonderful succession of poetic visions which he presented, marked by a play of fancy, a fertility of inventiveness, tender witchery of inspiration exquisite colour, and grace and harmony of line and grouping, he was able to develop the spirit of religious emotion to a far fuller extent than he himself had intended, and to vivify the old legends of primitive times which had formed part of his inheritance from Celtic ancestors. His appearance on the horizon of art was to a great extent coincident with the blossoming forth of what has been termed the Oxford Movement in religion, a growing desire for a deeper and fuller devotion, an eager determination to return to earlier and purer lines of thought in religion to set faith free from the regulations of statecraft, and to rise from the dreary monotony of a Genevan theology to something approaching closer to the fiery enthusiasm and the sumptuous ceremonial of the passionate faith of earlier days. The progress of this movement within the Protestant Church led to a considerable number of accessions to the Catholic Faith, but in the Church of its origin it worked a complete revolution. Once more there arose the determination that the house of God should be beautiful, and once again art with all the various crafts closely connected therewith entered into the service of religion, very much in the manner they had done in preceding centuries. Tapestry-workers, under the influence of William Morris and Burne-Jones, were set to work to prepare panels of glowing colour for the decoration of churches. The stained-glass painters, under the influence of these craftsmen, sought out old designs, originated new schemes of colour, and worked hard to discover old secrets of technic. The earlier schools of embroidery were studied, and all over the country women set to work to make vestments and to execute needlework of rare distinction and great beauty. A revival took place in the art of the metal-worker and in that of the stone-mason. Many fine wrought- iron grilles were made, and the claim of the artist to prepare the design and to superintend the carrying out of its execution was once more considered and gladly entertained. Quite apart from the religious aspect of the movement there was in this Oxford revival the origin of the effort towards greater refinement, greater beauty, and more attention to handicraft which, commencing in the middle of the nineteenth century, has by no means reached its culmination till the early years of the twentieth.

One of the first and most important of the movements which aimed to break away from the artistic traditions of the eighteenth century took place in the early part of the nineteenth century in Germany, and was led by Overbeck. The Academy of Vienna, at the time that he entered it, was under the direction of Füger, a talented miniature painter, but a follower of the pseudo classical school of David, and a firm believer in the tenets of these opinions, too conservative to vary from them in the least degree. Overbeck felt that he was among commonplace painters, that every noble thought was suppressed within the academy, and that Christian art had been diverted and corrupted until nothing Christian remained in it. The differences between him and his followers and their fellow-students were so serious that the upholders of Overbeck and their leader were expelled from the academy. Leaving Vienna Overbeck journeyed to Rome, reaching it in 1810, and remaining there for fifty-nine years. Here he was joined by such men as Veit, Cornelius Schadow, with others of less importance - together they formed a school which was known as the Nazarites, or the Church-Romantic painters. They built up a severe revival on simple nature and the serious art of the Umbrian and Bolognese painters, and although for a long time they laboured under great difficulties yet, after a while, they were able to exert considerable influence, and their success led to memorable revivals throughout Europe. Overbeck was a Catholic, as were several of his friends. He was a man of high purity of motive, of deep insight, and abounding knowledge, a very saintly person, and a perfect treasury of art and poetry, insomuch that his influence helped very largely to purify the art of his time. The secessions from the conservative line adopted by the Royal Academy in England late in the nineteenth century were not marked by the particular element of religious fervour distinguishing Overbeck, but were the result of a similar determination to return to nature, and understand the art of painting in the open air, with not only a strict adherence to realism in choice and treatment of subject, but also the subordination of colour to tone gradation. These secessions in England were, however, very much the result of the movement in France which had preceded them, and which was connected with the name of Millet.

In Catholic countries there are arising some signs that the old practice of enlisting the services of art for the purposes of religion may be developed, but the signals of an approaching movement are not very strong as yet, and the Church has a good deal to learn with regard to decoration, to design, and to craftsmanship from the earlier periods of its history. Foremost among the signs of the new spirit must be placed the erection of the Westminster Cathedral at London, one of the most perfect buildings in England, erected after the truest and most careful study of the past and with every desire to give full play to the spirit of the present and to the original talent of its designer, while avoiding anything that could be called a slavish copying of the past. This building affords an example of the revived use of mosaic properly applied, in method following the work of Ravenna, and planned by a great artist, Bentley. It affords the most perfect scheme of interior decoration that could well be conceived. In other countries of Europe the signs of progress are not quite so clear, but the Church which fostered and encouraged art from its very birth has so many glorious examples in its midst of the great achievements of profound genius that it can only be a matter of time before its ancient use of the fine arts is revived. A close study of the past would enable the Church to once more set about the task of employing the craftsmen of the world to produce their finest work in the domain of ecclesiastical art.

Illustrations explanatory of the different branches of ecclesiastical art will be found under the special articles: IVORIES; MANUSCRIPTS, ILLUMINATION OF; METAL-WORK; PAINTING; RELIQUARIES; SCULPTURE; WOOD-CARVING.

GEORGE CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Ecclesiastical Architecture

The best definition of architecture that has ever been given is likewise the shortest. It is "the art of building" (Viollet-le-Duc, Dict., I, 116). The art, be it observed, and not merely the act of building. And when we say the art of building, the term must be held to imply the giving to buildings of whatever beauty is consistent with their primary purpose and with the resources that may be available. As a recent writer has said: "It can hardly be held that there is one art of making things well, and another of making them badly. . . Good architecture is . . . the art of building beautifully and expressively; and bad architecture is the reverse. But architecture is the art of building in general" (Bond, Gothic architecture in England, 1). Since, however, the word building is apt to suggest, primarily, "the actual putting together of . . . materials by manual labour and machinery", it may be desirable to amend or restrict the definition given above by saying that architecture is the art of planning, designing, and drawing buildings, and of directing the execution thereof (Bond, op. cit., 2). And in this art as in all others, including that of life itself, the fundamental principle should always be that of subordinating means to ends and secondary to primary ends. Where this principle is or has been abandoned or lost sight of, the result may indeed be, or may have been, a building which pleases the eye, but it must needs be also one which offends that sense of the fitness of thing 3, which is the criterion of the highest kind of beauty. Now a church is, primarily, a building intended for the purpose of public worship; and in all sound ecclesiastical architecture this purpose should be altogether paramount. To build a church for the admiration of "the man the street", who sees it from outside, or of the tourist who pays it a passing visit, or of the artist, or of anyone else whatsoever except that of the faithful who use the church for prayer, the hearing of Mass, and the reception of the sacraments, is to commit a solecism in the liturgy of all the material arts. Even the needs of the liturgy itself are in a sense subsidiary to the needs of the faithful. Sacramenta propter homines is an old and sound saying. But, on the other hand, among the needs of the faithful must be reckoned, under normal circumstances, the adequate carrying out of the liturgy. It is, of course, perfectly true to say that a church is not only a building, in which we worship God but also itself the expression of an act of worshipful homage. This, however, it ceases to be, at least in the highest degree, unless, as has been said, the aesthetic qualities of the building have been entirely subordinated to its primary purpose. It only needs a little reflection to see that these preliminary remarks have a very practical bearing on modern church-building. There is a danger lest we should be dominated by technical terms and conventional opinions about the merits of this or that style of architecture, derived from times and circumstances that have passed away lest we should be led by sentiment or fashion, or mere lack of originality, to copy from the buildings of a bygone age without stopping to consider whether or how far the needs of our own day are those of the days when those buildings were raised. And the chief use of the study of the history of ecclesiastical architecture is not that it directs attention to a number of buildings more or less beautiful in themselves, but that it cannot fail to bring home to us that all true architectural development was inspired, primarily, by the desire to find a solution of some problem of practical utility.

Roughly speaking, all ecclesiastical architecture may be said to have been evolved from two distinct germ-cells, the oblong and the circular chamber. From the simple oblong chamber to the perfect Gothic cathedral the steps can be plainly indicated and admit of being abundantly illustrated from the actual course of architectural development in Western Europe, while the links which connect the simple circular chamber with a gigantic cruciform domed church, like St. Peter's in Rome or St. Paul's in London, are still more obvious, though the actual course of development in the case of domed churches has been far less continuous and regular.

THE ORIGINS OF ECCLESIASTICAL ARCHITECTURE

That the first place set apart for Christian worship were rooms in private dwellings is admitted on all hands; and, although it is at least doubtful whether all the texts from the New Testament which have been alleged in support of the statement will bear the interpretation that has been put upon them, the statement itself hardly needs proof. It may be assumed, further that such rooms would for the most part have a simple oblong form, with a door in one of the narrower sides. From the first, however, there must have been some kind of division between the portion of the room occupied by the officiating clergy (the thysiastesion, sanctuary, or presbytery) and the space allotted to the faithful; and this division, we may feel sure, was from a very early date marked by at least a breast-high barrier, analogous to that which still survives in the ancient cancelli of S. Clemente, Rome, and also by a curtain which veiled the altar from view during certain portions of the Liturgy. And here we find the suggestion of a first step in the development of a distinctively ecclesiastical architecture. When the first churches or chapels were erected as independent structures, an obvious economy would suggest that, especially in the case of smaller edifices, the sanctuary need not be built so broad or so high as what may already be called the nave; and an equally obvious regard for stability would suggest that the division should be marked by an arch, supporting the gable wall at the further end of the nave.

Moreover, both structural and liturgical needs would alike be served if the piers which support the dividing arch were projected inwards, somewhat beyond the side walls of the sanctuary; for the narrower the space the easier it would be to construct the arch, and to suspend a curtain from pier to pier. Thus, then, that rudimentary type of church or chapel would be reached of which archaic examples still survive in England and Ireland. Mr. Scott notes that in many of our oldest English churches there are clear indication that the opening from the nave into the sanctuary was originally much narrower than it is at present. He further notes that in the persistent adherence to the square-ended type of sanctuary which manifests itself throughout the history of English ecclesiastical architecture, may possibly be found a surviving indication of the very early introduction of Christianity into these islands.

The earliest improvement on the crude form of the oblong chamber with its rectangular annex, and one which may well have become usual even while the liturgy was confined to a single room in a private house, was to throw out a semicircular apse at the end of the chamber opposite the door, or to 8 t for the purposes of worship a room thus built. And this would almost certainly be the form adopted, at least in Rome, as soon as the Christian communities began to possess separate buildings in which to hold their religious meetings. These buildings would be, in the eyes of the public and perhaps of the law, scholae or guild-rooms; and for such buildings the form most commonly adopted appears to have been that of an oblong terminated by an apse. In the apse, of course, was placed the seat of the bishop; round the walls on either side were the subsellia of the assistant clergy, while the altar stood beneath the arch formed by the opening of the apse, or slightly in advance of it. On the hither side of the altar would be space reserved for the clerics of inferior rank, and for the schola cantorum, as soon as an organized body of singers, under whatever name, came into existence Outside the boundary of this space, however it may have been marked, the general body of the faithful would have their place, and at the lower end of this chamber, or in some kind of ante room or narthex, or possibly even in an outer court, would he placed the catechumens and -- when ecclesiastical discipline was sufficiently developed -- the penitents.

This particular form of the domestic church, removed by just one degree, architecturally speaking from a quite primitive simplicity, deserves special attention. For there would seem to be good grounds for the assertion that it had become at least not uncommon, even within Apostolic times. In fact, as several writers on the subject have quite independently pointed out, the main feature of the arrangement would seem to be indicated in the New Testament itself. The visions recorded in the Apocalypse are, of course, Divine revelations; but, as the vision of Ezechiel was cast in the mould of the Jewish ritual, so also those of St. John may be reasonably thought to reflect the ritual of primitive Christianity. There, then, in the midst, we see the throne, whereon there sits One enthroned, of whom the Christian bishop is the representative; and with Him are four and twenty presbyters, who are "priests" (hiereis), ranged in a semicircle (kyklothen), twelve on either hand (Apoc., iv, 2, 4). Within the space bounded by these seats is a pavement of glass "like to crystal" (possibly of mosaic), and in the centre the altar (Apoc., iv, 6; vi, 9; viii, 3; ix, 13; xvi, 7). On the hither side of this are the one hundred and forty-four thousand "signed" or "sealed", who "sing a new canticle", and who incidentally bear witness to the very early origin of the schola cantorum, at least in some rudimentary form (Apoc vii 4, xiv, 1-3). Farther removed from the altar is that "great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues", the heavenly counterpart of the coetus fidelium. (Apoc., vii, 9).

To lateral columns and aisles there is indeed no allusion, but it is at least possible that in the mention of the outer court which is "given unto the Gentiles" we may find the earliest traces of the atrium or parvis, which in the later ages formed part of the precincts of a fully equipped basilica (Apoc., xi, 2; Scott, op. cit., 31). Moreover, in these same Apocalyptic visions certain details of internal arrangement, which might perhaps have been thought to have been of comparatively late development, appear to be clearly implied. Every one is aware that in the basilicas of the fourth and succeeding centuries the altar was surmounted by a baldachin, or civory; and it is hardly less certain that the civory was not merely a canopy, but a means of support for curtains which during certain portions of the Liturgy were drawn round the altar. Traces of these ancient curtains still survive in those which flank our modern altars, in our tabernacle veils, and in the very name tabernacle, i.e. "tent", and also, curiously enough, in "those imitations of silken vallances, cast in bronze, . . . which we see in the canopies of S. Maria Maggiore and St. Peter's" (Scott, op. cit., 29). In addition to these canopy veils, however, we hear of curtains which, when drawn close, concealed the entire sanctuary from view. In the East these have, of course, been replaced by the iconostasis, a screen formerly latticed but now usually solid; while in the West they are represented, not without some change of position, by our chancel screens, and may be thought to have found another modified survival in the Lenten veil of the Middle Ages.

Now, whatever may be the case as regards the civory with its veils, there are clear indication the Apocalypse that the transverse curtains were in use from Apostolic times. For the seer thrice makes mention of a "voice" which he heard, and which preceded either "from the four horns of the golden altar" (Apoc., ix, 13), or "from the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony" (Apoc., xv, 5), or "from the throne" (Apoc., xvi, 17). From the first of these expressions it is plain that the altar, at the moment when the voice was heard, must have been shrouded from view, and from the last it appears that the throne was likewise within the space enclosed within the veil. As regards other ritual indications in the Apocalypse, it must be sufficient barely to mention here the "souls of the martyrs" beneath the altar, the incense, the opening of the sealed book, and the garb, carefully distinguished, of the various classes of persons mentioned in the visions (Apoc., vi, 9; viii, 3; etc.).

THE BASILICA AND BASILICAN CHURCHES

A great deal of conjecture has been expended on the question as to the genesis of the Roman basilica. For present purposes it may be sufficient to observe that the addition of aisles to the nave was so manifest a convenience that it might not improbably have been thought of, even had models not been at hand in the civic buildings of the Empire. The most suitable example that can be chosen as typical of the Roman basilica of the age of Constantine is the church of S. Maria Maggiore. And this, not merely because, in spite of certain modern alterations, it has kept in the main its original features, but also because it departs, to a lesser extent than any other extant example, from the classical ideal. The lateral colonnade is immediately surmounted by a horizontal entablature, with architrave, frieze, and cornice all complete. The monolithic columns, with their capitals, are, moreover, homogenous, and have been cut for their position, instead of being like those of so many early Christian churches, the more or less incongruous and heterogeneous spoils of older and non-Christian edifices. Of this church, in its original form, no one -- however decidedly his tastes may incline to some more highly developed system or style of architecture -- will call in question the stately and majestic beauty. The general effect is that of a vast perspective of lines of noble columns, carrying the eye forward to the altar, which, with its civory or canopy, forms so conspicuous an object, standing, framed, as it mere, within the arch of the terminal apse, which forms its immediate and appropriate background.

S. Maria Maggiore is considerably smaller than were any of the other three chief basilicas of Rome (St Peter's, St. Paul's, and the Lateran). Each of these, in addition to a nave of greater length and breadth, was furnished (as may still be seen in the restored St Paul's) with a double aisle. This, however, was an advantage which was not unattended with a serious drawback from a purely esthetic point of view. For a great space of blank wall intervening between the top of the lateral colonnade and the clerestory windows was of necessity required in order to give support to the penthouse roof of the double aisle. And it is curious, to say the least, that it should not have occurred to the builders of those three basilicas to utilize a portion of the space thus enclosed, and at the same time to lighten the burden of the wall above the colonnade, by constructing a gallery above the inner aisle. It is true, of course, that such a gallery is found in the church of S. Agnese, where the low-level of the floor relatively to the surface of the ground outside may have suggested this method of construction; but whereas, in the East, the provision of a gallery (used as a gynaeceum) was usual from very early times, it never became otherwise than exceptional in the West. Taking East and West together, we find among early and medieval basilican churches examples of all the combinations that are possible in the arrangement of aisles and galleries. They are

• the single aisle without gallery, which is, of course, the commonest type of all;
• the double aisle without gallery, as in the three great Roman basilicas;
• the single aisle with gallery, as in S. Agnese;
• the double aisle with single gallery, as in St. Demetrius at Thessalonica;
• and finally, as a crowning example, though of a later period, the double aisle surmounted by a double gallery, as in the Duomo at Pisa.

These, however, are modifications in the general design of the building. Others, not less important, though they are less obviously striking, concern the details of the construction. Of these the first was the substitution of the arch for the horizontal entablature, and the second that of the pillar of masonry for the monolithic column. The former change, which had already come into operation in the first basilica of St. Paul without the Walls, was so obviously in the nature of an improvement in point of stability that it is no matter for surprise that it should have been almost. universally adopted. Colonnaded and arcaded basilicas, as we may call them, for the most part older than the eleventh century, are to be found in the most widely distant regions, from Syria to Spain, and from Sicily to Saxony; and the lack of examples in Southern France is probably due to the destructive invasion of the Saracens and Northmen and to the building of new churches of a different type, in the eleventh and succeeding centuries, on the ruins of the old. The change from column to pillar, though in many cases it was no doubt necessitated by lack of suitable materials -- for the supply of ready-made monoliths from pagan buildings was not inexhaustible -- proved, in fact, the germ of future development; for from the plain square support to the recessed pillar, and from this again to the grouped shafts of the Gothic cathedrals of later times, the progress can be quite plainly traced.

Mention should here be made of a class of basilican churches, in which as in S. Miniato, outside Florence, and in S. Zenone, Verona, pillars or grouped shafts alternate, at fixed intervals, with simple columns, and serve the purpose of affording support to transverse arches spanning the whole width of the nave; a first step, it may be observed, to continuous vaulting.

ROMANESQUE TYPES

Something must now be said of the very important alterations which the eastern end of the basilican church underwent in the process of development from the Roman to what may conveniently be grouped together under the designation of "Romanesque" types. When, in studying the ground-plan of a Roman basilica, we pass from the nave and aisles to what lies beyond them, only two forms of design present themselves. In the great majority of instances the terminal apse opens immediately on the nave, with the necessary result, so far as internal arrangements are concerned, that the choir, as we should call it, was an enclosure, quite unconnected with the architecture of the building, protruding forwards into the body of the church, as may still be seen in the church of S. Clemente in Rome. In the four greater basilicas, however, as well as in a few other instances, a transept was interposed between the nave and the apse, affording adequate space for the choir in its central portion, while its arms (which did not project beyond the aisles) served the purpose implied in the terms senatorium and matroneum. Now it is noteworthy that the transept of a Roman basilica is, architecturally speaking, simply an oblong hall, crossing the nave at its upper extremity, and forming with it a T-shaped cross, or crux immissa, but having no organic structural relation with it. But it was only necessary to equalize the breadth of transept and nave, so that their crossing became a perfect square, in order to give to this crossing a definite structural character, by strengthening the pieces at the four angles of the crossing, and making them the basis of a more or less conspicuous tower. And this was one of the most characteristic innovation or improvements introduced by the Romanesque builders of Northern Europe. In fact, however, before this stage of development was reached, the older basilican design had undergone another modification. For the simple apse, opening immediately to the transept, church builders of all parts of Europe had already in the eighth century substituted a projecting chancel, forming a fourth limb of the cross, which now definitively assumed the form of the crux commissa, by contrast with the crux immissa of the Roman basilica. The earliest example of a perfectly quadrate crossing, with a somewhat rudimentary tower, appears to have been the minster of Fulda, built about A. D. 800. It was quickly followed by St. Gall (830), Hersfeld (831), and Werden (875); but nearly two centuries were to elapse before the cruciform arrangement, even in the case of more important churches, can be said to have gained general acceptance (Dehio and v. Bezold, Die kirchliche Baukunst des Abendlandes, I, 161).

The differences which have already been mentioned were, however, by no means the only ones which distinguished the Romanesque from the Roman transept. The transept of a Romanesque church, especially of those which were attached to monasteries, was usually provided with one or more apses, projecting from the east side of its northern and southern arms; and from this it appears, plainly enough, that the purpose, or at least a principal purpose, of the medieval transept, was to make provision for subsidiary altars and chapels. A pair of transept apses, projecting eastwards, already makes its appearance at Hersfeld and Werden. At Bernay, Boscherville (St-Georges), and Cerisy-la-Forêt (St-Vigor), each arm of the transept has two eastern apses, corresponding respectively to the aisle and to the projecting arm. The same arrangement is found also at Tarragona. At La Charité, a priory dependent on Cluny, each arm had three apses, so that there were seven in all, immediately contiguous to one another, and varying in depth from the central to the northern and southern members of the system. The plan of Cluny itself was that of a cross with two transverse beams. Of the western transept each arm had two apses; of the eastern each had three, two projecting eastwards and one terminal. Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire had likewise a double transept, furnished on the same principle with six subsidiary apses. Among English cathedrals -- it may here be mentioned -- both Canterbury and Norwich have a single chapel projecting from each arm of their respective transepts; and at E1y the "Galilee" porch, which has the form of a western transept, opens eastwards into two apsidal chapels, contiguous on either side to the main walls of the cathedral.

Far more important in their bearing on the later history of architecture than these developments of the transept were certain changes which gradually took place in connection with the chancel. It is not unusual in Romanesque churches, to find the chancel flanked, like the nave, with aisles, terminating in apsidal or square-ended chapels. But in more considerable edifices especially in France, the aisle is often carried round as an ambulatory behind the chancel apse; and when this is the case, the ambulatory most commonly opens into a series of radiating chapels. These are, in the earliest examples, entirely separate from one another, being sometimes two or four, but more usually three or five, in number. In later examples the number of chapels increases to seven or even nine; and they are then contiguous, forming a complete corona or chevet.

The first beginnings of this system go back to so early a date as the fifth century. De Rossi has argued, apparently on good grounds, that some early Roman, Italian, and African basilicas were furnished with an ambulatory round the apse. This form of design, however, was soon abandoned in Italy, and in the Romanesque pre-Gothic period it cannot be said to have been usual anywhere except in France, where it proved a seed rich with the promise of future developments. The earliest instance of its adoption there was almost certainly the ancient church of St-Martin of Tours, as rebuilt by Bishop Perpetuus in A. D. 470. This edifice, as Quicherat has shown, had a semicircular ambulatory at the back of the altar, in which, a few years later, was placed the tomb of Perpetuus himself. From Tours the type seems to have passed to Clermont-Ferrand (Sts. Vitalis and Agricola), and thence, many centuries later, to Orléans (St-Aignan, 1029). Meanwhile, in 997, the church of St. Martin had been rebuilt, and in the foundations of this edifice, which can still be traced, we find what is probably the earliest example of a chevet or corona of radiating chapels. It served, in its turn, in the course of the following century, as the model, in this respect, of Notre-Dame de la Couture at Le Mans (c. 1000), St-Remi at Reims (c. 1010), St-Savin at Saint Savin (1020-30), the cathedral at Vannes (c. 1030), St-Hilaire at Poitiers (1049), and the abbey church at Cluny, as rebuilt in 1089. Shortly before 1100 the church of St. Martin was once more rebuilt, on a scale of greater splendour; and once more the new building became the model for other churches, chief among which were those of St-Sernin at Toulouse (1096), of Santiago at Compostela (c. 1105), and of the cathedral at Chartres (1112).

ROMANESQUE VAULTING

The history of ecclesiastical architecture in Western Europe during the relatively short period which alone deserves to be regarded as one of more or less continuous and steady advance, and which extends, roughly speaking, from 1000 to 1300, may be described as the history of successive and progressive attempts to solve the problem, how best to cover with stone vaulting a basilican or quasi-basilican church, that is to say, a building of which the leading feature is a nave flanked with aisles and lighted with clerestory windows (Dehio and v. Bezold, op. cit. I, 296; Bond, op. cit., 6). It was the conditions of this problem, and the failure, more or less complete, of all previous attempts to solve it satisfactorily, and by no means a mere aesthetic striving after beauty of architectural form, which led step by step to the development of the Gothic architecture of the thirteenth century in its unsurpassed and unsurpassable perfection.

The advantages of a vaulted, as compared with a timber, roof are so obvious that we are not surprised to find, dating from the tenth century or at latest from the beginning of the eleventh, examples of basilican churches with vaulted aisles. Indeed these first attempts at continuous vaulting would probably have been made much earlier, but for the invasions of Saracens and Northmen, which delayed till that period the first beginnings of a steady development in ecclesiastical architecture, but which by their wholesale destruction of pre-existing buildings may be said to have prepared the way for that same development. The vaulting of the nave, however, in the case of any church of considerable size, was a very different matter; and it was not until the eleventh century was well advanced that the problem was seriously faced. And when at last it was definitely taken in hand, this was done under pressure of dire necessity. Everyone who is at all conversant with medieval chronicles, or with the history of the cathedrals of Western Europe, must be aware how extremely frequent were the disasters caused by conflagrations, and it was natural enough that the church-builders of the later Middle Ages should aim at making their buildings, at least relatively, fire-proof.

The simplest form which the vaulting of a rectangular chamber can take is, of course, the cylindrical barrel-vault; and this is, in fact, the form which was adopted in many of the earliest examples of vaulted roofs, especially in the south of France; a form, too, which was extensively used in Italy during the age of the Renaissance. But, though simplest alike in conception and in construction, the cylindrical barrel-vault is in fact the least satisfactory that could be devised for its purpose; and the objections which militate against its employment are equally valid against that of the barrel-vault whose cross section forms a pointed arch. Of these objections the chief is that the horizontal thrust of a barrel-vault is evenly distributed throughout its entire length. Theoretically, then, this thrust requires to be met, not by a series of buttresses, but by a continuous wall of sufficient thickness to resist the outward pressure at any and every point along the line. Moreover, the higher the wall, the greater is the thickness needed, assuming of course that the wall stands free, like the clerestory wall of an aisled church. Much, too, will depend on the cohesiveness of the vaulting itself; and as the Romanesque church-builders were either unacquainted with, or unable to use, the methods by which the Romans and the Byzantines respectively contrived to give an almost rigid solidity to their masonry, it is no matter for surprise that in two large classes of instances they should have been content to sacrifice either the clerestory or the aisles to the advantages of a vaulted roof and to the exigencies of stability. Of aisleless churches indeed, we must forbear here to speak. But of an important group of buildings which German writers have designated Hallenkirchen (hall-churches) a word must be said, as they unquestionably played a part in preparing the way for the final solution of the problem of vaulting.

The most rudimentary form of hall-church is that in which the nave and aisles are roofed with three parallel barrel-vaults, those of the aisles springing from the same level as those of the nave. Examples are found at Lyons (St-Martin d'Ainay), at Lesterps, at Civray, and Carcassonne (St-Nazaire). An improvement on this design, in view of the illumination of the nave, consists in giving to the vaulting of the aisles the form of a "rampant" arch, as at Silvacanne, and from this it was but a step to the arrangement by which the section took the form of a simple quadrant as at Parthenay-le-Vieux, Preuilly, and Fontfroide. This method of quadrant vaulting, as Viollet-le-Duc and others have observed, provides a kind of continuous internal "flying buttress", though it is by no means certain that the idea of the flying buttress in the Gothic architecture of Northern France was actually suggested by these Southern buildings. In point of stability. the hall-churches of the eleventh century leave nothing to be desired. Their great defect is want of light. And this defect almost equally affects a class of buildings which may be described as two-storied hall-churches, and which are found principally, if not exclusively, in Auvergne and its neighbourhood. These are furnished, like a few of the Roman basilicas and certain Byzantine churches, with a gallery, which is not a mere triforium contrived in the thickness of the walls, but a chamber of equal dimension with the aisle. This arrangement not only affords additional spaces but also, by reason of the greater height of the edifice, might seem to facilitate the provision of a more liberal supply of light, unimpeded by neighbouring buildings. This last mentioned advantage is, however, almost entirely negatived by the circumstance that, in this class of buildings, each bay of the gallery is subdivided by means of coupled or grouped arches, so that the additional obstruction offered to the passage of the light almost entirely counterbalance the possible gain through additional fenestration. We say "the possible gain" because, in fact, the galleries of these churches are but sparingly provided with windows. In these churches (which to the English reader should be of special interest by reason of their affinity in point of construction to the Westminster cathedral) the aisle is usually cross-vaulted, while the gallery has a quadrant vault abutting in the wall of the nave just below the springing of the transverse arches. The most noteworthy examples are found at Clermont-Ferrand (Notre Dame du Port), Issoire (St-Paul), and Conques. To the same family belongs moreover, the great church of St-Sernin at Toulouse already mentioned, which is distinguished from those previously named by having a double aisle. At Nevers the church of St-Etienne resembles those at Clermont, Issoire, and Conques, except that it is provided with a range of upper windows which break through the barrel-vaulting, somewhat after the fashion which afterwards became so common in Italy in churches of the Renaissance period.

The inherent shortcomings of the barrel-vault, especially when used as a roof for the nave of an aisled church, have been sufficiently illustrated. These disadvantages, so far as structural stability and fenestration are concerned, might indeed be overcome by adopting the system of a succession of transverse barrel-vaults, such as are seen in the unique instance of the church of St-Philibert at Tournus. Such a construction is, however, "ponderous and inelegant, and never came into general use" (Moore, Gothic Architecture, 42). The system of cross-vaulting, which has now to be considered, may be regarded as a combination of longitudinal with transverse barrel-vaulting, inasmuch as it may be described as consisting of a central barrel which is penetrated or intersected by a series of transverse vaults, corresponding of course to the successive bays or compartments of the nave. The advantages of cross-vaulting are threefold. In the first place the total amount of the outward lateral thrust is very greatly diminished, since one half of it is now replaced by longitudinal thrusts, which, being opposed in pairs, neutralize one another. Secondly, all that is left of the lateral thrust, as well as the longitudinal thrusts, and the whole of the vertical pressure instead of being distributed throughout the whole length of the building, is now collected and delivered at definite points, namely the summits of the columns or pillars. Thirdly and lastly, a perfectly developed system of cross-vaulting makes it possible so to heighten the clerestory windows that their archivolts shall reach the utmost interior height of the building, and so to broaden them that their width between reveals may approximate very closely to the interval between column and column below. By these improvements (as ultimately realized in the perfected Gothic of the thirteenth century) the somewhat rudimentary design of the ancient Roman basilica may be said to have reached the highest development of which it is capable. The gradual development of cross-vaulting it is to be observed, did not take place in those districts of Southern and Central France which had already become the home of the barrel-vault and to a less degree of the cupola, but first in Lombardy then in Germany, and finally in Northern France and in England. In these countries the evolution of the Romanesque timber-roofed basilican church had -- with local variations of course -- reached a far more advanced stage than was ever attained in these regions in which the adoption of barrel-vaulting at a relatively early date had in a manner put a check on architectural progress. And it is noteworthy that in Lombardy and Germany, when cross-vaulting was first adopted, its development was far less complete than in Northern France, and that in like manner the advance towards perfection was both less rapid and less complete in Normandy than in Picardy and the Ile-de-France. These two districts were the last to adopt the system, but it was here that it was within the brief space of less than fifty years (1170-1220), brought to its final perfection. The reason may probably have been, as Dehio and von Bezold suggest, that the architects of the Ile-de-France, in the days of Philip Augustus and St. Louis, were less trammelled than those of Normandy by the traditions of a school. The comparative lack of important architectural monuments of an earlier date left them, say these writers, a more open field for their inventive enterprise (op. cit. I, 418).

The simplest form of cross-vaulting is of course that which is formed by the intersection of two cylindrical barrel-vaults of equal span. And this, without the use of ribbed groining, was the method mostly adopted by the Roman builders in their civic edifices. In the case of a pillared or columned church, however, this method had its disadvantages. In particular, having regard to the dimensions of the aisle and its vaulting, the builders of Northern Europe had all but universally adopted the plan of so spacing the columns and pillars which flank the nave that the intervals between them should be one-half the width of the church. Now the only means by which an equal height could be given to vaults of unequal span was the use of the pointed arch; and so it came about that the pointed arch was adopted, not primarily for aesthetic reasons, but rather for constructive purposes. And the same is to be said of the use of ribbed groining. The medieval builders, who, as has been said above, possessed neither a tenacious mortar nor the command of an abundant supply of rough labour, and who therefore could not -- even had they wished it -- have adopted the massive concrete masonry of the Romans, were driven by the very necessities of the case to aim at the same time to depend for stability not on the cohesion of the materials, but on the reduction of thrusts to a minimum, and on their skilful transmission to points where they could be effectively resisted. It was, then, plainly desirable to substitute for a vaulting of uniform thickness a framework of ribs on which a comparatively thin layer of stones (cut to the requisite curvature) could be laid, and as far as possible to lighten the whole construction by moulding the ribs and likewise the columns which supported the vaulting. The same principle of aiming at lightness of construction led to the elimination, as far as possible, of arches of the nave. This was done by the enlargement of the windows and the development of the triforium, till the entire building, with the exception of the buttresses, and of the spandrels below the triforium, became a graceful framework of grouped shafts and interlacing ribs (Moore, op. cit., 17). The final stage in the evolution of architecture of the pointed arch was not, however, reached, until, for the solid Romanesque buttresses, which rested on the vaulting of the aisles, and which were not only clumsy but often proved inadequate for their purpose, the genius of the Gothic builders hit upon the epoch-making device of the flying buttress. By means of this device the thrust of the main vaulting was not, indeed, as has been too often said, "met by a counter-thrust", but was transmitted to the solid buttresses, mostly weighted with pinnacles, which were now built outwards to a great distance from the aisles, and the spaces between which were sometimes utilized, and might with advantage have been more often utilized, for a range of lateral chapels. The subject of Gothic architecture in its details is, however, one that needs separate treatment, and for present purposes this very inadequate indication of some of the general principles involved in its development must suffice.

THE CIRCULAR CHURCH AND ITS DERIVATIVES

It was stated at the outset of the article that all ecclesiastical architecture may be said to have been developed from two primitive germs, the oblong and the circular chamber. Of those very numerous churches, principally, but by no means exclusively, Eastern or Italian, which may be regarded as the products of the second line of development, we shall speak very briefly. That a circular chamber without any kind of annex was unsuitable for the ordinary purposes of public worship is plain enough. And the most obvious modification of this rudimentary form was to throw out a projecting sanctuary on one side of the building, as in St. George's, Thessalonica, or in the little church of S. Tommaso in Limine, near Bergamo. It was hardly less obviously convenient to build a projecting porch or narthex on the opposite side, as in St. Elias's, also at Thessalonica, and to complete the cross by means of lateral projection, as in the sepulchral chapel of Galla Placidia at Ravenna. Thus it was that churches having the form of a Greek cross, as well as other varieties of what German authors call the Centralbau, may be said to owe their origin to a very simple process of evolution from the circular domed building. Among the almost endless varieties on the main theme may be here enumerated:

• buildings in which a circular, or polygonal, or quadrilateral aisle, whether in one or more stories, surrounds the central space,
• buildings in which, though the principal open space is cruciform, and the whole is dominated by a central cupola, the ground-plan shows a rectangular outline, the cross being, as it were, boxed within a square; and
• buildings in which one of the arms of the cross is considerably elongated, as in the Duomo at Florence, St. Peter's in Rome, and St. Paul's in London.

The last-named modification, it is to be observed, has the effect of assimilating the ground-plan of those great churches, and of many lesser examples of the same character, to that of the Romanesque and Gothic cruciform buildings whose genealogical descent from the columned rectangular basilica is contestable. Among ecclesiastical edifices of historical importance or interest which are either circular or polygonal, or in which the circular or polygonal centre predominates over subsidiary parts of the structure, may be mentioned the Pantheon in Rome, St. Sergius at Constantinople, S. Vitale at Ravenna, S. Lorenzo at Milan, the great baptisteries of Florence, Siena, and Pisa, and the churches of the Knights Templars in various parts of Europe. St. Luke at Stiris in Phocis, besides being an excellent typical instance of true Byzantine architecture, affords a good example of the "boxing" of a cruciform building of the Greek type, by enclosing within the walls the square space between the adjacent limbs of the cross.

Practically, however, the full development of cruciform from circular buildings became possible only when the problem had been solved of roofing a square chamber with a circular dome. This has in some cases been done by first reducing the square to an octagon, by means of "squinches" or "trompettes", and then raising the dome on the octagon, by filling in the obtuse angles of the figure with rudimentary pendentives or faced corbelling. But already in the sixth century the architect and builder of Santa Sophia had showed for all time that it was possible by means of "true" pendentives, to support a dome, even of immense size, on four arches (with their piers) forming a square. The use of pendentives being once understood, it became possible, not only to combine the advantages of a great central dome with those of a cruciform church, but also to substitute domical for barrel-vaulting over the limbs of the cross, as at S. Marco, Venice, St-Front, Périgueux, and S. Antonio, Padua, or even to employ domical vaulting for a nave divided into square bays, as in the cathedral at Angouleme and other eleventh century churches in Perigord, in S. Salvatore at Venice, in the London Oratory, and (with the difference that saucer domes are here employed) in the Westminster Cathedral. Nor should it be forgotten that in the nave of St. Paul's, London, the architect had shown that domical vaulting is possible even when the bays of nave or aisles are not square, but pronouncedly oblong. Indeed, if account be taken of the manifold disadvantages of barrel-vaulting as a means of roofing the nave of a large church, it may safely be said that the employment of some form of the dome or cupola is as necessary to the logical and structural perfection of the architecture of the round arch as ribbed groining and the use of flying buttresses are necessary to the logical and structural perfection of the architecture of the pointed arch.

SYSTEMS AND STYLES OF ARCHITECTURE IN RELIGION TO MODERN NEEDS

A word must now be said, in conclusion, as to the merits of the several systems and styles of architecture, more especially in relation to the needs of our own day. Of systems, indeed, there are in truth only three, the trabeate or that of which the horizontal lintel may be regarded as the generating element, and which of necessity postulates a timber roof; that of the round arch, which by virtue of the law of economy postulates, as has been said, the use of domical rather than barrel-vaulting and that of the pointed arch, which, if carried to perfection postulates ribbed groining and the use of the flying buttress. The second system, however, admits of two methods of treatment which are sufficiently distinctive to be classed as two "styles", viz. the neoclassical, or Renaissance, and the Byzantine, and which shall be particularized presently.

Now the trabeate system, or that of the timber roof, may be very briefly dismissed. In the great majority of cases we must, indeed, of necessity be content with such a covering, for our churches; but no one would choose a wooden roof who could afford a vaulted building. Again, the various types of Romanesque architecture, with their imperfect and tentative methods of vaulting, though historically of great interest, should be regarded as finally out of court. On the other hands of the Gothic architecture of the thirteenth century as exemplified in the great cathedrals of Northern France and of Cologne, it mas be quite fearlessly asserted:

• that every single principle of construction employed therein was the outcome of centuries of practical experience, in the form of successive and progressive attempts to solve the problems of church vaulting;
• that the great loftiness of these buildings was not primarily due (as has been sometimes suggested) to any mere Emporstreben, or "upward-soaring" propensity, but was simply the aggregate result of giving to the windows of the aisles and of the clerestory a height in suitable proportion to their width, and to the triforium a height sufficient to allow of the abutment of the aisle roof; and
• that every subsequent attempt to modify in any substantial particular, this perfected Gothic style, was of its nature retrogressive and decadent, as may be illustrated from the English perpendicular and the Italian and Spanish varieties of Gothic architecture.

Nevertheless it must be admitted that thirteenth-century Gothic, though perfect of its kind, has its limitations, the most serious of which -- in relation to modern needs -- is the necessarily restricted width of the nave. When the architect of the Milan cathedral attempted to improve on his French predecessors by exceeding their maximum width of fifty feet, and to construct a Gothic building with a nave measuring sixty feet across it was found impossible, as the building proceeded, to carry out the original design without incurring the almost certain risk of a collapse, and hence it was necessary to depress the clerestory to its present stunted proportions. Now under modern conditions of life, especially in the case of a cathedral of first-class importance, a nave of far greater width is by all means desirable; and in order to secure this greater width it is necessary either to fall back on the unsatisfactory compromise of Italian or Spanish Gothic, as illustrated in the cathedrals of Milan, Florence, or Gerona, or else to adopt the principle of the round arch, combined, by preference, with domical vaulting. This, as everyone knows, is what Mr. Bentley has done, with altogether conspicuous success, in the case of the Westminster Cathedral. Of the design of this noble edifice it is impossible to speak here. But it may be worth while to indicate one main reason for the choice of the Byzantine rather than the neoclassic or Renaissance treatment of the round-arch system. The principal difference between the two is this: that, whereas the neoclassical style, by its use of pilasters, treats every pier as though it were a cluster of huge, flat-faced columns; the Byzantine boldly distinguishes between piers and columns, and employs the latter exclusively for the purposes which monolithic shafts are suited to fulfil, for instance the support of a gallery while the piers in a Byzantine building make no pretence of being other than what they are, viz., the main supports of the vaulting. The Byzantine method of construction was employed at Westminster has the further advantage that it brings within the building the whole of the spaces between the buttresses thereby at the same time increasing the interior dimensions and avoiding the awkward appearance of ponderous external supports. Nor is the Byzantine style of architecture suitable for a great cathedral alone; and one may venture to hope that the great experiment which has been tried at Westminster will be fruitful of results in the future development of ecclesiastical architecture.

HERBERT LUCAS

Ecclesiasticus

(Abbrev. Ecclus.; also known as the Book of Sirach.)

The longest of the deuterocanonical books of the Bible, and the last of the Sapiential writings in the Vulgate of the Old Testament.

I. TITLE

The usual title of the book in Greek manuscripts and Fathers is Sophia Iesou uiou Seirach, "the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach", or simply Sophia Seirach "the Wisdom of Sirach". It is manifestly connected with and possibly derived from, the following subscription which appears at the end of recently-discovered Hebrew fragments of Ecclesiasticus: "Wisdom [Hó khmâ ] of Simeon, the son of Yeshua, the son of Eleazar, the son of Sira". Indeed, its full form would naturally lead one to regard it as a direct rendering of the Hebrew heading: Hokhmath Yeshua ben Sira, were it not that St. Jerome, in his prologue to the Solominic writings, states that the Hebrew title of Ecclesiasticus was "Mishle" (Parabolae) of Jesus of Sirach. Perhaps in the original Hebrew the book bore different titles at different times: in point of fact, the simple name Hokhma, "Wisdom", is applied to it in the Talmud, while Rabbinic writers commonly quote Ecclesiasticus as Ben Sira. Among the other Greek names which are given to Ecclesiasticus in patristic literature, may be mentioned the simple title of Sophia, "Wisdom", and the honorary designation he panaretos sophia, "all-virtuous Wisdom".

As might well be expected, Latin writers have applied to Ecclesiasticus titles which are derived from its Greek names, such as "Sapientia Sirach" (Rufinus); "Jesu, filii Sirach" (Junilius), "Sapienta Jesu" (Codex Claromontanus); "Liber Sapientiae" (Roman Missal). It can hardly be doubted, however, that the heading "Parabolae Salomonis", which is prefixed at times in the Roman Breviary to sections from Ecclesiasticus, is to be traced back to the Hebrew title spoken of by St. Jerome in his prologue to the Solomonic writings. Be this as it may, the book is most commonly designated in the Latin Church as "Ecclesiasticus", itself a Greek word with a Latin ending. This last title -- not to be confounded with "Ecclesiastes" (Eccl.) -- is the one used by the Council of Trent in its solemn decree concerning the books to be regarded as sacred and canonical. It points out the very special esteem in which this didactic work was formerly held for the purpose for general reading and instruction in church meetings: this book alone, of all the deuterocanonical writings, which are also called Ecclesiastical by Rufinus, has preserved by way of pre-eminence the name of Ecclesiasticus (Liber), that is "a church reading book".

II. CONTENTS

The Book of Ecclesiasticus is preceded by a prologue which professes to be the work of the Greek translator of the origional Hebrew and the genuineness of which is undoubted. In this preface to his translation, the writer describes, among other things his frame of mind in undertaking the hard task of rendering the Hebrew text into Greek. He was deeply impressed by the wisdom of the sayings contained in the book, and therefore wished, by means of a translation, to place those valuable teachings within the reach of anyone desiring to avail himself of them for living in more perfect accord with the law of God. This was a most worthy object, and there is no doubt that in setting it before himself the translator of Ecclesiasticus had well realized the general character of the contents of that sacred writing. The fundamental thought of the author of Ecclesiasticus is that of wisdom as understood and inculcated in inspired Hebrew literature; for the contents of this book, however varied they may appear in other respects, admit of being naturally grouped under the genral heading of "Wisdom". Viewed from this standpoint, which is indeed universally regarded as the author's own standpoint, the contents of Ecclesiasticus may be divided into two great parts: chs. i-xlii, 14; and xlii, 15-1, 26. The sayings which chiefly make up the first part, tend directly to inculcate the fear of God and the fulfilment of His commands, wherein consists true wisdom. This they do by pointing out, in a concrete manner, how the truly wise man shall conduct himself in the manifold relationships of practical life. They afford a most varied fund of thoughtful rules for self-guidance

in joy and sorrow, in prosperity and adversity, in sickness and health, in struggle and temptation, in social life, in intercourse with friends and enemies, with high and low, rich and poor, with the good and wicked, the wise and the foolish, in trade, business, and one's ordinary calling, above all, in one's own house and family in connection with the training of children, the treatment of men-servants and maid-servants, and the way in which a man ought to behave towards his own wife and women generally (Schü rer).

Together with these maxims, which resemble closely both in matter and form the Proverbs of Solomon, the first part of Ecclesiasticus includes several more or less long descriptions of the origin and excellence of wisdom (cf. i; iv, 12-22; vi, 18-37; xiv, 22-xv, 11; xxiv). The contents of the second part of the book are of a decidely more uniform character, but contribute no less effectively to the setting forth of the general topic of Ecclesiasticus. They first describe at length the Divine wisdom so wonderfully displayed in the realm of nature (xlii, 15-xliii), and next illustrate the practice of wisdom in the various walks of life, as made known by the history of Israel's worthies, from Enoch down to the high priest Simon, the writer's holy contemporary (xliv-1, 26). At the close of the book (1, 27-29), there is first, a short conclusion containing the author's subscription and the express declaration of his general purpose; and next, an appendix (li) in which the writer returns thanks to God for His benefits, and especially for the gift of wisdom and to which are subjoined in the Hebrew text recently discovered, a second subscription and the following pious ejaculation: "Blessed be the name Of Yahweh from this time forth and for evermore."

III. ORIGINAL TEXT

Until quite recently the original language of the Book of Ecclesiasticus was a matter of considerable doubt among scholars. They, of course, know that the Greek translator's prologue states that the work was originally written in "Hebrew", hebraisti, but they were in doubt as to the precise signification of this term, which might mean either Hebrew proper or Aramaic. They were likewise aware that St. Jerome, in his preface to the Solomonic writings, speaks of a Hebrew original as in existence in his day, but it still might be doubted whether it was truly a Hebrew text, or not rather a Syriac or Aramaic translation in Hebrew characters. Again, in their eyes, the citation of the book by rabbinical writers, sometimes in Hebrew, sometimes in Aramaic, did not appear decisive, since it was not certain that they came from a Hebrew original. And this was their view also with regard to the quotations, this time in classical Hebrew, by the Bagdad gaon Saadia of the tenth century of our era, that is of the period after which all documentary traces of a Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus practically disappear from the Christian world. Still, most critics were of the mind that the primitive language of the book was Hebrew, not Aramaic. Their chief argument for this was that the Greek version contains certain errors: for example, xxiv, 37 (in Gr., verse 27), "light" for "Nile" (xx); xxv, 22 (Gr. verse 15), "head" for "poison" (xx); xlvi. 21 (Gr., verse 18), "Tyrians" for "enemies" (xxx); etc.; these are best accounted for by supposing that the translator misunderstood a Hebrew original before him. And so the matter stood until the year 1896, which marks the beginning of an entirely new period in the history of the original text of Ecclesiasticus. Since that time, much documentary evidence has come to light, and intends to show that the book was originally written in Hebrew. The first fragments of a Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus (xxxix, 15-xl, 6) were brought from the East to Cambridge, England, by Mrs. A.S. Lewis; they were identified in May 1896, and published in "The Expositor" (July, 1896) by S. Schechter, reader in Talmudic at Cambridge University. About the same time, in a box of fragments acquired from the Cairo genizzah through Professor Sayce for the Bodleian Library, Oxford, nine leaves apparently of the same manuscript (now called B) and containing xl, 9-xlix, 11, were found by A.E. Cowley and Ad. Neubauer, who also soon published them (Oxford, 1897) Next followed the identification by Professor Schechter, first, of seven leaves of the same Codex (B), containing xxx, 11-xxxi, 11; xxxii, 1b-xxxiii 3; xxxv, 11-xxxvi, 21; xxxvii, 30-xxxviii, 28b; xlix, 14c-li, 30; and next, of four leaves of a different manuscript (called A), and presenting iii, 6e-vii, 31a; xi, 36d-xvi, 26. These eleven leaves had been discovered by Dr.. Schechtler in the fragments brought by him from the Cairo genizzah; and it is among matter obtained from the same source by the British Museum, that G. Margoliouth found and published., in 1899, four pages of the manuscript B containing xxxi, 12-xxxii, 1a; xxxvi, 21-xxxvii, 29. Early in 1900, I. Lé vi published two pages from a third manuscript (C), xxxvi, 29a-xxxviii, la, that is, a passage already contained in Codex Bl and two from a fourth manuscript (D), presenting in a defective manner, vi, 18-vii, 27b, that is, a section already found in Codes A. Early in 1900, too, E. N. Adler published four pages of manuscript A, vix. vii, 29-xii, 1; and S. Schechter, four pages of manuscript C, consisting of mere excerpts from iv, 28b-v, 15c; xxv, 11b-xxvi, 2a. Lastly, two pages of manuscript D were discovered by Dr. M.S. Gaster, and contain a few verses of chaps. xviii, xix, xx, xxvii, some of which already appear in manuscripts B and C. Thus be the middle of the year 1900, more than one-half of a Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus had been identified and published by scholars. (In the foregoing indications of the newly-discovered fragments of the Hebrew, the chapters and verses given are according to the numbering in the Latin Vulgate).

As might naturally be anticipated, and indeed it was desirable that it should so happen, the publication of these various fragments gave rise to a controversy as to the originality of the text therein exhibited. At a very early stage in that publication, scholars easily noticed that although the Hebrew language of the fragments was apparently classical, it nevertheless contained readings which might lead one to suspect its actual dependence on the Greek and Syriac versions of Ecclesiasticus. Whence it manifestly imported to determine whether, and if so, to what extent, the Hebrew fragments reproduced an original text of the book, or on the contrary, simply presented a late retranslation of Ecclesiasticus into Hebrew by means of the versions just named. Both Dr. G. Bickell and Professor D.S. Margoliouth, that is, the two men who but shortly before the discovery of the Hebrew fragments of Ecclesiasticus had attempted to retranslate small parts of the book into Hebrew, declared themselves openly against the originality of the newly found Hebrew text. It may indeed be admitted that the efforts naturally entailed by their own work of retranslation had especially fitted Margoliouth and Bickell for noticing and appreciating those features which even now appear to many scholars to tell in favour of a certain connection of the Hebrew text with the Greek and Syriac versions. It remains true, however, that, with the exception of Israel Lé vi and perhaps a few others, the most prominent Biblical and Talmudic scholars of the day are of the mind that the Hebrew fragments present an original text. They think that the arguments and inferences most vigorously urged by Professor D.S. Margoliouth in favour of his view have been disposed of through a comparison of the fragments published in 1899 and 1900 with those that had appeared at an earlier date, and through a close study of nearly all the facts now available. They readily admit in the manuscripts thus far recovered, scribal faults, doublets, Arabisms, apparent traces of dependence on extant versions, etc. But to their minds all such defects do not disprove the originality of the Hebrew text, inasmuch as they can, and indeed in a large number of cases must, be accounted for by the very late characrter of the copies now in our possession. The Hebrew fragments of Ecclesiasticus belong, at the earliest, to the tenth, or even the eleventh, century of our era, and by that late date all kinds of errors could naturally be expected to have crept into the origional language of the book, because the Jewish copyists of the work did not regard it as canonical. At the same time these defects do not disfigure altogether the manner of Hebrew in which Ecclesiasticus was primitively written. The language of the fragments is manifestly not rabbinic, but classical Hebrew; and this conclusion is decidely borne out by a comparison of their text with that of the quotations from Ecclesiasticus, both in the Talmud and in the Saadia, which have already been referred to. Again, the Hebrew of the newly found fragments, although classical, is yet one of a distinctly late type, and it supplies considerable material for lexicographic research. Finally, the comparatively large number of the Hebrew manuscripts recently discovered in only one place (Cairo) points to the fact that the work in its primitive form was often transcribed in ancient times, and thus affords hope that other copies, more or less complete, of the original text may be discovered at some future date. To render their study convenient, all the extant fragments have been brought together in a splendid edition. "Facsimiles of the Fragments hitherto recovered of the Book of Ecclesiasticus in Hebrew" (Oxford and Cambridge, 1901). The metrical and strophic structure of parts of the newly discovered text has been particularly investigated by H. Grimme and N. Schlogl, whose success in the matter is, to say the least, indifferent; and by Jos. Knabenbauer, S.J. in a less venturesome way, and hence with more satisfactory results.

IV. ANCIENT VERSIONS

It was, of course, from a Hebrew text incomparably better than the one we now possess that the grandson of the author of Ecclesiasticus rendered, the book into Greek. This translator was a Palestinian Jew, who came to Egypt at a certain time, and desired to make the work accessible in a Greek dress to the Jews of the Dispersion, and no doubt also to all lovers of wisdom. His name is unknown, although an ancient, but little reliable, tradition ("Synopsis Scripurae Sacrae" in St. Athanasius's works) calls him Jesus, the son of Sirach. His literary qualifications for the task he undertook and carried out cannot be fully ascertained at the present day. He is commonly regarded, however, from the general character of his work, as a man of good general culture, with a fair command of both Hebrew and Greek. He was distinctly aware of the great difference which exists between the respective genius of these two languages, and of the consequent difficulty attending the efforts of one who aimed atgving a satisfactory Greek version of a Hebrew writing, and therefore begs expressely, in his prologue to the work, his readers indulgence for whatever shortcomings they may notice in his translation. He claims to have spent much time and labour on his version of Ecclesiasticus, and it is only fair to suppose that his work was not only a conscientious, but also, on the whole, a successful, rendering of the original Hebrew. One can but speak in this guarded manner of the exact value of the Greek translation in its primitive form for the simple reason that a comparison of its extant manuscripts -- all apparently derived from a single Greek exemplar -- shows that the primitive translation has been very often, and in many cases seriously, tampered with. The great uncial codices, the Vatican, the Sinaitic, the Ephraemitic, and partly the Alexandrian, though comparatively free from glosses, contain an inferior text; the better form of the text seems to be preserved in the Venetus Codex and in certain cursive manuscripts, though these have many glosses. Undoubtedly, a fair number of these glosses may be referred safely to the translator himself, who, at times added one word, or even a few words to the original before him, to make the meaning clearer or to guard the text against possible misunderstanding. But the great bulk of the glossed resemble the Greek additions in the Book of Proverbs; they are expansions of the thought, or hellenizing inerpretations, or additions from current collections of gnomic sayings. The following are the best-ascertained results which flow from a comparison of the Greek version with the text of our Hebrew fragments. Oftentimes, the corruptions of the Hebrew may be discovered by means of the Greek; and, conversely, the Greek text is proved to be defective, in the line of additions or omissions, by references to parallel places in the Hebrew. At times, the Hebrew discloses considerable freedom of rendering on the part of the Greek translator; or enables one to perceive how the author of the version mistook one Hebrew letter for another; or again, affords us a means to make sense out of an unintelligible expressions in the Greek text. Lastly, the Hebrew text confirms the order of the contents in xxx-xxxvi which is presented by the Syriac, Latin, and Armenian versions, over against the unnatural order found in all existing Greek manuscripts. Like the Greek, the Syriac version of Ecclesiasticus was made directly from the original Hebrew. This is wellnigh universally admitted; and a comparison of its text with that of the newly found hebrew fragments should settle the point forever; as just stated, the Syriac version gives the same order as the Hebrew text for the contents of xxx-xxxvi; in particular, it presents mistaken renderings, the origin of which, while inexplicable by supposing a Greek original as its basis, is easily accounted for by reference to the text from which it was made must have been very defective, as is proved by the numerous and important lacunae in the Syriac translation. It seems, likewise, that the Hebrew has been rendered by the translator himself in a careless, and at times even arbitrary manner. The Syriac version has all the less critical value at the present day, because it was considerably revised at an unknown date, by means of the Greek translation.

Of the other ancient versions of Ecclesiasticus, the Old Latin is the most important. It was made before St. Jerome's time, although the precise date of its origin cannot now be ascertained; and the holy doctor apparently revised its text but little, previously to its adoption into the Latin Vulgate. The unity of the Old Latin version, which was formerly undoubted, has been of late seriously questioned, and Ph. Thielmann, the most recent investigator of its text in this respect, thinks that chs. xliv-1 are due to a translator other than that of the rest of the book, the former part being of European, the latter and chief part of African, origin. Conversely, the view formerly doubted by Cornelius a Lapide, P. Sabatier, E.G. Bengel, etc., namely tha the Latin version was made directly from the Greek, is now considered as altogether certain. The version has retained many Greek words in a latinized form: eremus (vi, 3); eucharis (vi, 5); basis (vi, 30); acharis (xx, 21), xenia (xx, 31); dioryx (xxiv, 41); poderes (xxvii, 9); etc., etc., together with certain Graecisms of construction; so that the text rendered into Latin was unquestionably Greek, not the original Hebrew. It is indeed true that other features of the Old Latin -- notably its order for xxx-xxxvi, which disagrees with the Hebrew text -- seem to point to the conclusion that the Latin version was based immediately on the original Hebrew. But a very recent and critical examination of all such features in i-xliii has let H. Herkenne to a different conclusion; all things taken into consideration, he is of the mind that: "Nititur Vetus Latina textu velgari graeco ad textum hebraicum alterius recensionis graece castigato." (See also Jos. Knabenbauer, S.J., "In Ecclesiaticum", p. 34 sq.) Together with graecized forms, the Old Latin translation of Ecclesiasticus presents many barbarisms and solecisms (such as defunctio, i, 13; religiositas, i, 17, 18, 26; compartior, i, 24; receptibilis, ii, 5; peries, periet, viii, 18; xxxiii, 7; obductio, ii, 2; v, 1, 10; etc.), which, to the extent in which they can be actually traced back to the original form of ther version, go to show that the translator had but a poor command of the Latin language. Again, from a fair number of expressions which are certainly due to the translator, it may be inferred that at times, he did not catch the sense of the Greek, and that at other times he was too free in rendering the text before him. The Old Latin version abounds in additional lines or even verses foreign not only to the Greek, but also to the Hebrew text. Such important additions -- which often appear clearly so from the fact that they interfere with the poetical parallelisms of the book -- are either repetitions of preceding statements under a slightly different form, or glosses inserted by the translator or the copyists. Owing to the early origin of the Latin version (probably the second century of our era), and to its intimate connection with primitive form, as far as this form can be ascertained is one of the chief things to be desired for the textual criticism of Ecclesiasticus. Among the other ancinet versions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus which are derived from the Greek, the Ethiopic, Arabic, and Coptic are worthy of special mention.

V. AUTHOR AND DATE

The author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus is not King Solomon, to whom, at St. Augustine bears witness, the work was oftentimes ascribed "on account of some resemblance of style" with that of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticle of Canticles, but to whom, as the same holy doctor says, "the more learned" (apparently among the church writers of the time) "know full well that it should not be referred" (On the City of God, Bk. XVII, ch xx). At the present day, the authorship of the book is universally and rightly assigned to a certain "Jesus", concerning whose person and character a great deal has indeed been surmised but very little is actually known. In the Greek prologue to the work, the author's proper name is given as Iesous, and this information is corroborated by the subscriptions found in the original Hebrew: 1, 27 (Vulg., 1, 29); li, 30. His familiar surname was Ben Sira, as the Hebrew text and the ancient versions agree to attest. He is described in the Greek and Latin versions as "a man of Jerusalem" (1, 29), and internal evidence (cf. xxiv, 13 sqq.; 1) tends to confirm the statement, although it is not found in the Hebrew. His close acquaintance with "the Law, the Prophets, and the other books delivered from the fathers", that is, with the three classes of writings which make up the Hebrew Bible, is distinctly borne witness to by the prologue to the work; and the 367 idioms or phrases, which the study of the Hebrew fragments has shown to be derived from the sacred books of the Jews, are an ample proof that Jesus, the son of Sirach, was thoroughly acquainted with the Biblical text. He was a philisophical observer of life, as can be easily inferred from the nature of his thought, and he himself speaks of the wider knowledge which he acquired by traveling much, and of which he, of course, availed himself in writing his work (xxxiv, 12). The particular period in the author's life to which the composition of the book should be referred cannot be defined, whatever conjectures may have been put forth in that regard by some recent scholars. The data to which others have appealed (xxxi, 22, sqq.; xxxviii, 1-15; etc.) to prove that he was a physician are insufficent evidence; while the similarity of the names (Jason-Jesus) is no excuse for those who have identified Jesus, the son of Sirach, a man of manifestly pious and honourable character with the ungodly and hellenizing high priest Jason (175-172 B.C. -- concerning Jason's wicked deeds, see II Mach., iv, 7-26).

The time at which Jesus, the author of Ecclesiasticus, lived has been the matter of much discussion in the past. But at the present day, it admits of being given with tolerable precision. Two data are particularly helpful for this purpose. The first is supplied by the Greek prologue, where he came into Egypt en to ogdoo kai triakosto etei epi tou Euergetou Basileos, not long after which he rendered into Greek his grandfather's work. The "thirty-eighth year" here spoken of by the translator does not mean that of his own age, for such a specification would be manifestly irrelevant. It naturally denotes the date of his arrival in Egypt with a reference to the years of rule of the then monarch, the Egyptian Ptolemy Euergetes; and in point of fact, the Greek grammatical construction of the passage in the prologue is that usually employed into the Septuagint version to give the year of rule of a prince (cf. Aggeus; i, 1; 10; Zach., i, 1, 7; vii, 1; 1 Mach., xii, 42; xiv, 27; etc.). There were indeed two Ptolemys of the surname Euergetes (Benefactor): Ptolemy III and Ptolemy VII (Physcon). But to decide which is the one actually meant by the author of the prologue is an easy matter. As the first, Ptolemy III, reigned only twenty-five years (247-222 B.C.) it must be the second, Ptolemy VII, who in intended. This latter prince shared the throne along with his brother (from 170 B.C. onwards), and afterwards ruled alone (from 145 B.C. onwards). But he was wont to reckon the years of his reign from the earlier date. Hence "the thirty-eighth year of Ptolemy Euergetes", in which the grandson of Jesus, the son of Sirach, came to Egypt, is the year 132 B.C. This being the case, the translator s grandfather, the author of Ecclesiasticus, may be regarded as having lived and written his work between forty and sixty years before (between 190 and 170 B.C.), for there can be no doubt that in referring to Jesus by means of the term pappos and of the definite phrase ho pappos mou Iesous, the writer of the prologue designated his grandfather, and not a more remote ancestor. The second datum that is particularly available for determining the time at which the writer of Ecclesiasticus lived is supplied by the book itself. It has long been felt that since the son of Sirach celebrated with such a genuine glow of enthusiam the deeds of "the high priest Simon, son of Onias", whom he praises as the last in the long line of Jewish worthies, he must himself have been an eyewitnes of the glory which he depicts (cf. 1, 1-16, 22, 23). This was, of course, but an inference and so long as it was based only on a more or less subjective appreciation of the passage, one can easily undertand why many scholars questioned, or even rejected, its correctness. But with the recent discovery of the original Hebrew of the passage, there has come in a new, and distinctly objective, element, whcih places practically beyond doubt the correctness of the inference. In the Hebrew text, immediatley after his eulogism of the high priest Simon, the writer subjoins the following fervent prayer:

May His (i.e. Yahweh's) mercy be continually with Simon, and may He establish with him the covenant of Phineas, that will endure with him and with his seed, as the says of heaven (I, 24).

Obviously, Simon was yet alive when this prayer was thus formulated; and its actual wording in the Hebrew implies this so manifestly, that when the author's grandson rendered it into Greek, at a date when Simon had been dead for some time, he felt it necessary to modify the text before him, and hence rendered it in the following general manner:

May His mercy be continually with us, and may He redeem us in His days.

Besides thus allowing us to realize the fact that Jesus, the son of Sirach, was a contemporary of the high priest Simon, chap. 1 of Ecclesiasticus affords us certain details which enable us to decide which of the two Simons, both high priests and sons of Onias and known in Jewish history, is the one described by the writer of the book. On the one hand, the only known title of Simon I (who held the pontificate under Ptolemy Soter, about 300 B.C.) which would furnish a reason for the great ecomium passed upon Simon in Ecclus., l is the surname "the Just" (cf. Josephus, Antiq. of the Jews, Bk.XII, chap. ii, 5), whence it is inferred that he was a renowned high priest worthy of being celebrated among the Jewish heroes praised by the son of Dirach. On the other hand, such details given in Simon's panegyric, as the facts that he repaired and strengthened the Temple, fortified the city against siege, and protected the city against robbers (cf. Ecclus., 1 1-4), are in close agreement with what is known of the times of Simon II (about 200 B.C.). While in the days of Simon I, and immediately after, the people were undisturbed by foreign aggression, in those of Simon II the Jews were sorely harrassed by hostile armies, and their territory was invaded by Antiochus, as we are informed by Josephus (Antiq. of the Jews, Bk. XII, chap. iii, 3). It was also in the later time of Simon II that Ptolemy Philopator was prevented only by the high priest's prayer to God, from desecrating the Most Holy Place; he then started a fearful persecution of the Jews at home and abroad (cf. III Mach., ii, iii). It appears from these facts -- to which others, pointing in the same direction, could easily be added -- that the author of Ecclesiasticus lived about the beginning of the second century B.C. As a matter of fact, recent Catholic scholars, in increasing number, prefer this position that which identifies the high priest Simon, spoken of in Ecclus., l, with Simon I, and which, in consequence, refers the composition of the book to about a century earlier (about 280 B.C.)

VI. METHOD OF COMPOSITION

At the present day, there are two principal views concerning the manner in which the writer of Ecclesiasticus composed his work, and it is difficult to say which is the more probable. The first, held by many scholars, maintains that an impartial study of the topics treated and of their actual arrangement leads to the conclusion that the whole book is the work of a single mind. Its advocates claim that, throughout the book, one and the same general purpose can be easily made out, to wit: the purpose of teaching the practical value of Hebrew wisdom, and that one and the same method in handling the materials can be readily noticed, the writer always showing wide acquaintance with men and things, and never citing any exterior authority for what he says. They affirm that a careful examination of the contents disclosed a distinct unity of mental attitude on the author's part towards the same leading topics, towards God, life, the Law, wisdom, etc. They do not deny the existence of differences of tone in the book, but think that they are found in various paragraphs relating to minor topics; that the diversities thus noticed do not go beyond the range of one man's experience; that the author very likely wrote at different intervals and under a variety of circumstances, so that it is not to be wondered at if pieces thus composed bear the manifest impress of a somewhat different frame of mind. Some of them actually go so far as to admit that the writer of Ecclesiasticus may at times have collected thoughts and maxims that were already in current and popular use, may even have drawn material from collections of wise sayings no longer extant or from unpublished discourses of sages; but they, each and all, are positive that the author of the book "was not a mere collector or compiler; his characteristic personality stands out too distinctly and prominently for that, and notwithstanding the diversified character of the apophthegms, they are all the outcome of one connected view of life and of the world" (Schürer).

The second view maintains that the Book of Ecclesiasticus was composed by a process of compilation. According to the defenders of this position, the compilatory character of the book does not necessarily conflict with a real unity of general purpose pervading and connecting the elements of the work; such a purpose proves, indeed, that one mind has bound those elements together for a common end, but it really leaves untouched the question at issue, viz. whether that one mind must be considered as the original author of the contents of the book, or, rather, as the combiner of pre-existing materials. Granting, then, the existence of one and the same general purpose in the work of the son of Sirach, and admitting likewise the fact that certain portions of Ecclesiasticus belong to him as the original author, they think that, on the whole, the book is a compilation. Briefly stated, the following are their grounds for their position. In the first place, from the very nature of his work, the author was like "a gleaner after the grape-gatherers"; and in thus speaking of himself (xxxiii, 16) he gives us to understand that he was a collector or compiler. In the second place, the structure of the work still betrays a compilatory process. The concluding chapter (li) is a real appendix to the book, and was added to it after the completion of the work, as is proved by the colophon in 1, 29 sqq. The opening chapter reads like a general introduction to the book, and indeed as one different in tone from the chapters by which its immediately followed, while it resembes some distinct sections which are embodied in furthur chapters of the work. In the body of the book, ch. xxxvi, 1-19, is a prayer for the Jews of the Dispersion, altogether unconnected with the sayings in verses 20 sqq. of the same chapter; ch. xliii, 15-1, 26, is a discourse clearly separate from the prudential maxims by which it is immediatley preceded; chs. xvi, 24; xxiv, 1; xxxix, 16, are new starting-points, which, no less than the numerous passages marked by the address my son (ii, 1; iii, 19; iv, 1, 23; vi, 18, 24, 33; etc.). and the peculiar addition in 1, 27, 28, tell against the literary unity of the work. Other marks of a compilatory process have also been appealed to. They consist in the significant repetition of several sayings in different places of the book (cf. xx, 32, 33, which is repeated in xli, 17b, 18; etc.); in apparent discrepancies of thought and doctrine (cf. the differences of tone in chs. xvi; xxv; xxix, 21-41; xl, 1-11; etc); in certain topical headings at the beginning of special sections (cf.xxxi, 12; xli, 16; xliv, 1, in the Hebrew); and in an additonal psalm or canticle found in the newly discovered Hebrew text, between li, 12, and li, 13; all of which are best accounted for by the use of several smaller collections containing each the same saying, or differing considerably in their genral tenor, or supplies with their respective titles. Finally, there seems to be an historical trace of the compilatory character of Ecclesiasticus in a second, but unauthentic, prologue to the book, which is found in the "Synopsis Sacrae Scripturae". In this document, which is printed in the works of St. Athanasius and also at the beginning of Ecclesiasticus in the Complutensian Polyglot, the actual redaction of the book is ascribed to the Greek translator as a regular process of compilation detached hymns, sayings, prayers, etc., which had been left him by his grandfather, Jesus, the son of Sirach.

VII. DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL TEACHING

Before setting forth in a summary way the principal teachings, doctrinal and ethical, contained in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, it will not be amiss to premise two remarks which, however elementary, should be distinctly borne in mind by anyone who wished to view the doctrines of the son of Sirach in their proper light. First, it would be obviously unfair to require that the contents of this Sapiential book should come full up to the high moral standards of Christian ethics, or should equal in clearness and precision the dogmatic teachings embodied in the sacred writings of the New Testament or in the living tradition of the Church; all that can be reasonabley expected of a book composed some time before the Christian Dispensation, is that it shall set forth subsantially good, not perfect, doctrinal and ethical teaching. In the second place, both good logic and sound common sense demand that the silence of Ecclesiasticus concerning certain points of doctrine be not regarded as a positive denial of them, unless it can be clearly and conclusively shown that such a silence must be so construed. The work is mostly made up of unconnected sayings which bear on all kinds of topics, and on that account, hardly ever, if ever at all, will a sober critic be able to pronounce on the actual motive which prompted the author of the book either to mention or to omit a particular point of doctrine. Nay more, in presence of a writer manifestly wedded to the national and religious traditions of the Jewish race as the general tone of his book proves the author of Ecclesiasticus to have been, every scholar worthy of the name will readily see that silence on Jesus' part regarding some important doctrine, such for instance as that of the Messias, is no proof whatever that the son of Sirach did not abide by the belief of the Jews concerning that doctrine, and, in reference to the special point just mentioned, did not share the Messianic expectations of his time. As can readily be seen, the two general remarks just made simply set forth the elementary canons of historical criticism; and they would not have been dwelt on here were it not that they have been very often lost sight of by Protestant scholars, who, biased by their desire to disprove the Catholic doctrine of the inspired character of Ecclesiasticus, have done their utmost to depreciate the doctrinal and ethical teaching of this deuterocanonical book.

The following are the principal dogmatic doctrines of Jesus, the son of Sirach. According to him, as according to all the other inspired writers of the Old Testament, God is one and there is no God beside Him (xxxvi, 5). He is a living and eternal God (xviii, 1), and although His greatness and mercy exceed all human comprehension, yet He makes Himself known to man through His wonderful works (xvi, 18, 23 xviii, 4). He is the creator of all things (xviii, 1; xxiv, 12), which He produced by His word of command, stamping them all with the marks of greatness and goodness (xlii, 15-xliii; etc.). Man is the choice handiwork of God, who made him for His glory, set him as king over all other creatures (xvii, 1-8), bestowed upon him the power of choosing between good and evil (xv, 14-22), and will hold him accountable for his own personal deeds (xvii, 9-16), for while tolerating, moral evil He reproves it and enables man to avoid it (xv, 11-21). In dealing with man, God is no less merciful than righteous: "He is mighty to forgive" (xvi, 12), and: "How great is the mercy of the Lord, and His forgiveness to them that turn to Him" (xvii, 28); yet no one should presume on the Divine mercy and hence delay his conversion, "for His wrath shall come on a sudden, and in the time of vengeance He will destroy thee" (v, 6-9). From among the children of men, God selected for Himself a special nation, Israel, in the midst of which He wills that wisdom should reside (xxiv, 13-16), and in behalf of which the son of Sirach offers up a fervent prayer, replete with touching remembrances of God's mercies to the patriarchs and prophets of old, and with ardent wishes for the reunion and exaltation of the chosen people (xxxvi, 1-19). It is quite clear that the Jewish patriot who put forth this petition to God for future national quiet and prosperity, and who furthermore confidently expected that Elias's return would contribute to the glorious restoration of all Israel (cf. xlviii, 10), looked forward to the introduction of Messianic times. It remains true, however, that in whatever way his silence be accounted for, he does not speak anywhere of a special interposition of God in behalf of the Jewish people, or of the future coming of a personal Messias. He manifestly alludes to the narrative of the Fall, when he says: "From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die" (xxv, 33), and apparently connects with this original deviation from righteousness the miseries and passions that weigh so heavily on the children of Adam (xl, 1-11). He says very little concerning the next life. Earthly rewards occupy the most prominent, or perhaps even the sole, place, in the author's mind, as a sanction for present good or evil deeds (xiv, 22-xv, 6; xvi, 1-14); but this will not appear strange to anyone who is acquainted with the limitations of Jewish eschatology in the more ancient parts of the Old Testament. He depicts death in the light of a reward or of a punishment, only in so far as it is either a quiet demise for the just or a final deliverance from earthly ills (xli, 3, 4), or, on the contrary, a terrible end that overtakes the sinner when he least expects it (ix, 16, 17). As regards the underworld or Sheol, it appears to the writer nothing but a mournful place where the dead do not praise God (xvii, 26, 27)

The central, dogmatic, and moral idea of the book is that of wisdom. Ben Sira describes it under several important aspects. When he speaks of it in relation to God, he almost invariable invests it with personal attributes. It is eternal (i, 1), unsearchaable (i, 6, 7), universal (xxiv, 6 sqq.). It is the formative, creative power of the world (xxiv, 3 sqq.), yet is itself created (i, 9; also in Greek: xxiv, 9), and is nowhere treated as a distinct, subsisting Divine Person, in the Hebrew text. In relation to man, wisdom is depicted as a quality which comes form the Almighty and works most excellent effects in those who love Him (i, 10-13). It is identified with the "fear of God" (i, 16), which should of course prevail in a special manner in Israel, and promote among the Hebrews the perfect fulfilment of the Mosaic Law, which the author of Ecclesasticus regards as the living embodiment of God d wisdom (xxiv, 11-20, 32, 33). It is a priceless treasure, to the acquistion of which one must devote all his efforts, and the imparting of which to others one should never grudge (vi, 18-20; xx, 32, 33). It is a disposition of the heart which prompts man to practise the virtues of faith, hope, and love of God (ii, 8-10), of trust and submission, etc. (ii, 18-23; x, 23-27; etc.); which also secures for him happiness and glory in this life (xxxiv, 14-20; xxxiii, 37, 38; etc.). It is a frame of mind which prevents the discharge of the ritual law, especially the offering of sacrifices, from becoming a heartless compliance with mere outward observances, and it causes man to place inward righeousness far above the offering of rich gifts to God (xxxv). As can readily be seen, the author of Ecclesiasticus inculcated in all this a teaching far superior to that of the Pharisees of a somewhat later date, and in no way inferior to that of the prophets and of the commendable, too, are the numerous pithy sayings which the son of Sirach gives for the avoidance of sin, wherein the negative part of practical wisdom may be said to consist. His maxims against pride (iii, 30; vi, 2-4; x, 14-30; etc.), covetousness (iv, 36; v, 1; xi, 18-21), envy, (xxx, 22-27; xxxvi, 22), impurity(ix, 1-13; xix, 1-3; etc.).anger (xviii, 1-14; x, 6), intemperance (xxxvii, 30-34). sloth (vii, 16; xxii, 1, 2), the sins of the tongue(iv, 30; vli, 13, 14; xi, 2, 3; i, 36-40; v, 16, 17; xxviii, 15-27; etc.), evil company, (xi, 31-36; xxii, 14-18; etc.), display a close observation of human nature, stigmatize vice in a forcible manner, and at times point out the remedy against the spiritual distemper. Indeed, it is probably no less because of the success which Ben Sira attained to in branding vice than because of that which he obtained in directly inculcating virtue, that his work was so willingly used in the early days of Christianity for public reading at church, and bears, down to the present day, the pre-eminent title of "Ecclesiasticus".

Together with these maxims, which nearly all bear on what may be called individual morality, the Book of Ecclesiasticus contains valuable lessons relative to the various classes which make up human society. The natural basis of society is the family, and the son of Sirach supplies a number of pieces of advice especially appropriate to the domestic circles as it was then constituted. He would have the man who wishes to become the head of a family determined in the choice of a wife by her moral worth (xxxvi, 23-26; xl, 19-23). He repeatedly describes the precious advantages resulting from the possession of a good wife, and contrasts with them the misery entailed by the choice of an unworthy one (xxvi, 1-24; xxv, 17-36). The man, as the head of the family, he represents indeed as vested with more power than would be granted to him among us, but he does not neglect to point out his numerous responsibilities towards those under him: to his children, especially his daughter, whose welfare he might more particularly be tempted to neglect (vii, 25 sqq.), and his slaves, concerning whom he writes: "Let a wise servant be dear to thee as they own soul" (vii, 23; xxxiii, 31), not meaning thereby, however, to encourage the servant's idleness or other vices (xxxiii, 25-30). The duties of children towards their parents are often and beautifully insisted upon (vii, 29, 30, etc.). The son of Sirach devoted a variety of sayings to the choice and the worth of a real friend (vi, 6-17; ix, 14, 15; xii, 8, 9), to the care with which such a one should be preserved (xxii, 25-32), and also to the worthlessness and dangers of the unfaithful friend (xxvii, 1-6, 17-24; xxxiii, 6). The author has no brief against those in power but on the contrary considers it an expression of God's will that some should be in exalted, and others in humble, stations in life (xxxiii, 7-15). He conceives of the various classes of society, of the poor and the rich, the learned and the ignorant, as able to become endowed with wisdom (xxxvii, 21-29). He would have a prince bear in mind that he is in God's hand, and owes equal justice to all, rich and poor (v, 18; x, 1-13). He bids the rich give alms, and visit the poor and the afflicted (iv, 1-11; vii, 38, 39; xii, 1-7; etc.), for almsgiving is a means to obtain forgiveness of sin (iii, 33, 34; vii, 10, 36) whereas hardheartedness is in every way hurtful 9xxxiv, 25-29). On the other hand, he directs the lower classes, as we might call them, to show themselves submissive to those in higher condition and to bear patiently with those who cannot be safely and directly resisted (viii, 1-13; ix, 18-21; xiii, 1-8). Nor is the author of Ecclesiasticus anything like a misanthrope that would set himself up resolutely against the legitmate pleasures and the received customs of social life (xxxi, 12-42; xxxii, 1 sqq.); while he directs severe but just rebukes against the parasite (xxix, 28-35; xi, 29-32). Finally, he has favourable sayings about the physician (xxviii, 1-15(, and about the dead (vii, 37; xxxviii, 16-24); and strong words of caution against the dangers which one incurs in the pursuit of business (xxvi, 28; xxvii, 1-4; viii, 15, 16).

Catholic authors are marked with an asterik (*)

Commentaries: CALMET* (Venice, 1751): FRITZSCHE, (Leipzig, 1859); BISSELL (New York, 1880); LESETRE* (Paris, 1880); EDERSHEIM (London-1888); ZOCKLER, (Munich, 1891); RYSSEL (Tubingen, 1900-1901); KNABENBAUER* (Paris, 1902).
Introductions to the Old Testament: RAULT* (Paris, 1882); VIGOUROUX* (Paris, 1886); CORNELY* (Paris, 1886); TRONCHON-LESETRE* (Paris, 1890); KONIG (Bonn, 1893); CORNILL, (Freiburg, 1899); GIGOT* (New York, 1906)
Monographs on Ancient Versions: PETERS* (Freiburg, 1898); HERKENNE* (Leipzig, 1899).
Literature on Hebrew Fragments: TOUZARD* (Paris, 1901); KNABENBAUER* (Paris, 1902).

FRANCIS E. GIGOT

Samuel Eccleston

Fifth Archbishop of Baltimore, U.S.A., born near Chestertown, Maryland, 27 June, 1801; died at Georgetown, D.C., 22 April, 1851. His father was Samuel Eccleston, an Espiscopalian. After her husband's death, Mrs. Eccleston married a Catholic gentleman named Stenson. Samuel was thus brought under Catholic influences, and sent to St. Mary's College, Baltimore, where he was converted. Entering St. Mary's Seminary in 1819, he was ordained priest, 24 April, 1825. He went to Issy, France, for furthur theological studies, and, returning to Baltimore in July, 1827, was made vice-president, and two years later president, of St. Mary's College. On 14 Sept., 1834, he was consecrated titular Bishop of Thermia, and coadjutor with the right of succession for Baltimore, and, upon the death of Archbishop Whitfield, 19 October, 1834, succeeded to the metropolitan see. He became also admimistrator of Richmond, until Bishop Whelan's appointment in 1841.

During his term of office many new churches were erected. He contributed largely of his own means towards the building of the cathedral. To provide for German Caatholics the Redemptorists were invited from Austria in 1841; the Brothers of the Christian Schools were introduced into the United States in 1846, establishing Calvert Hall School at Baltimore, and the same year the Brothers of St. Patrick took charge of a manual labour school (since discontinued) near that city. An important event was the opening, 1 November, 1849, of St. Charles College, founded by the generosity of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Five provincial councils, the third to the seventh inclusive, were held at Baltimore under Archbishop Eccleston. (See BALTIMORE, ARCHDIOCESE OF.)

SHEA, Hist. of the Cath. Ch. in U.S. (New York,1892) . I, 441, II, 1; SCARF, Chronicles of Baltimore (Baltimore, 1874), 497-501; CLARKE, Lives of Deceased Bishops (New York, 1872), I, 484; REUSS, Biog. Encycl. Cath. Hierarchy of U.S. (Milwaukee, 1898).

J.P.W. MCNEAL

Thomas of Eccleston

Thirteenth-century Friar Minor and chronicler, dates of birth and death unknown. He styles himself simply "Brother Thomas" and Bale seems to have first given him the title "of Eccleston". He appears to have entered the order about 1232-3 and to have been a student at Oxford between 1230 and 1240. After the latter year he was stationed at the convent in London, but he does not appear to have ever held any office in the order. He is chiefly famous for his chronicle "De Adventu Fratrum Minorum in Angliam", which extends from the coming of the friars into England under Agnellus of Pisa, in 1224, up to about 1258, when the work was probably completed. Eccleston declares that he spent twenty-six years collecting material for his chronicle, most of the information it contains being derived from personal knowledge or verbal communication, although he seems to have had access to certain wrtten documents now lost. His "De Advetu" is a collection of notes rathe than a finished work. He describes with extreme simplicity and vividness what has been called the heroic period of the Franciscan movement in England. In spite of the absence of dates and of any chronological sequence and of its tendency to extol the English province above all others, his chronicle is very valuable and is accurate and reliable in all that concerns the establishment and spread of the Friars Minor in England. Incidentally it throws some light on the trend of early Franciscan events and thought in general. Four manuscripts of the "De Adventu", all of which go back to one lost archetype, are known to scholars. The chronicle has been often edited; in part by Brewer in the "Monumenta Fraciscana" (Rolls Series, London, 1858); and by Howlett in the same series (1882); by the Friars Minor at Quaracchi (in Analecta Franciscana, I, 1885, 217-57); by Liebermann in the "Monumenta Germaniæ" (XXVIII, Hanover, 1885, 560-69). A critical edition of the complete text is much needed. There is an English translation of Eccleston s work by Father Cuthbert, O.S.F.C., "The Friars and how they came to England" (London, 1903).

WADDING-SBARALEA; Script. ord. Min., ed. NARDECCHIA (Rome, 1907). 216; LITTLE, Thomas of Eccleston on the Coming of the Friars Minor to England (London, 1907).

PASCHAL ROBINSON

Jacques Echard

Historian of the Dominicans, born at Rouen, France, 22 September, 1644; died at Paris, 15 March, 1724. As the son of a wealthy official of the king he received a thorough classical and secular education. He entered the Dominican Order at Paris and distinguished himself for his assiduity in study. When Jacques Quétif, who had planned and gathered nearly one-fourth of the material for a literary history of the Dominican Order, died in 1698, Echard was commissioned to complete the work. After much labour and extensive research in most European libraries this monumental history appeared intwo quarto volumes under the title "Scriptores ordinis prædicatorum recensiti, notisque historicis illustrati" etc. (Paris, 1721). Besides a sketch, based chiefly on Pignon and Salanac, and a list of each writer's works, with dates and peculiarities of the various editions, Echard enumerates the unpublished, spurious, and doubtful works, with valuable indications as to their whereabouts. He displays throughout a keen, sane, and incisive criticism which has been highly praised by competent critics (Journaldes Savants, LXIX, 574). A new and revised edition was prepared in 1908 by Rémi Coulon, O.P.

THOS. M. SCHWERTNER

Baltasar De Echave

Painter, born at Zumaya, Guipuzcoa, Spain, in the latter part of the sixteenth century; died in Mexico about the middle of the seventeenth. As there was a painter of the same name, thought to be his son, he is known as Echave the Elder. He was one of the earliest Spanish artists to reach Mexico, arriving at about the same time, near the end of the sixteenth century, as Sebastian Arteaga and Alonzo Vasquez. He was then a young man, and there is a tradition that his wife, also a painter, was his instructor. Echave, whose subjects are chiefly religious, had especial skill in composition, and his best works, which have much charm of colour and tenderness of treatment, are thought to recall those of Guercino. In the galleries of the National Academy of San Carlos, in the City of Mexico, there are some of his best pictures, notably "The Adoration of the Magi", "Christ in the Garden", "The Martyrdom of San Aproniano", "The Holy Family", "The Visitation", "The Holy Sepulchre", "Saint Ann and the Virgin", "The Apparition of Christ and the Virgin to San Francisco", "The Martyrdom of San Ponciano" and "Saint Cecilia". In the church of San José el Real, generally known as the "Profesa", are several others, including "St. Isabel of Portugal", while he executed for the church of Santiago Tlaltelolco fifteen altar-panels. In the cathedral is his "Candelaria" and a "San Sebastian", believed to be by his wife. Among the smaller paintings of Echave is one of San Antonio Abad with St. Paul, the first hermit. The artist also had areputation as an author, among his works being one on the Biscayan language.

AUGUSTUS VAN CLEEF

Echinus

A titular see of Thessaly, Greece. Echinus, (Echinos, also Echinous) was situated on the northern shore of the Gulf of Lamia (Maliacus Sinus). Today it is a small village, Akkhinos (Achinos), of 500 inhabitants, in the demos of Phalara and the eparchy of Phthiotis. On the conical hill which rises above the village are remains of the old walls. The city has been destroyed by earthquakes and rebuilt many times, particularly in 426 B.C. and A.D. 551. Philip II of Macedon left it to the Malians, and Philip V took it from the Ætolians. It was fortified by Justinian, The see, mentioned in "Notitae episcopatuum" as late as the twelfth or thirteenth century, was a suffragan of Larissa. Three bishops are known: Theodore in 431, Peter in 451, and Aristotle in 459 (Lequien, Oriens christianus, II 115).

LEAKE, Northern Greece (London, 1835), II 80; PAULY-WISOWS, Real-Encyc., s.v.

S. PÉTRIDÈS

Abbey of Echternach

(Also EPTERNACH, Lat. EPTERNACENSIS).

A Benedictine monastery in the town of that name, in the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg and the Diocese of Trier. It was founded in 698 by St. Willibrord, and English monk of Ripon, who became the Apostle of Friesland and first bishop of Utrecht. Although a bishop, he ruled the monastery as abbot until his death in739. The abbey stood near Tier on land given him for the purpose by St. Irmine, Abbess of Oeren and daughter of Dagobert II. It had many royal and other benefactors, including Pepin and Charlemagne, who conferred upon it great privileges. In 859 the monks wee displaced by secular canons, as was so often the case with the early monasteries, but in 971 Emperor Otho I restored the Benedictine life there, bringing forty monks thither from the great Abbey of St. Maximin at Trier, one of whom, Ravanger by name, was made abbot. The monastery became very celebrated and was, during the Middle Ages, one of the most important in Northern Europe. It continued to flourish until the French Revolution, when it was suppressed, and the monks dispersed. The buildings put up by St. Willibrord were burnt down in 1017, and a new abbey was then erected. The church was Romanesque in style, but Gothic additions and alterations were made in the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. In 1797 it was sold and became a pottery manufactory, but in 1861 it was reacquired by the townspeople, through whose generosity and devotion it was restored and made a parish church. The reconsecration took place with great solemnity in 1868, and since that date the work of restoration and decoration has continued steadily. It is popularly called "the cathedral", though not the seat of a bishop. The conventual buildings, originally erected in 1017-31, have been frequently rebuilt and added to, and they were entirely modernized in 1732. At the suppression they became State property and have for many years served as barracks. The library was noted for a number of precious manuscripts of very early date which it contained; some of them are now in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris.

The Dancing Procession

The Abbey of Echternach owes much of its fame, especially in modern times, to the curious "dancing procession" which takes place annually on Whit Tuesday, in honour of St. Willibrord. The cult of the saint may be traced back almost to the date of his death, and the stream of pilgrims to his tomb in the abbey church had never ceased. The Emperors Lothair I, Conrad, and Maxmilian may be numbered amongst them. The tomb stands before the high altar and has been recently entirely renewed. On it is a recumbent effigy of the saint, and amongst other relics preserved there are a mitre, crosier, and chasuble said to have been used by him. The origin of the procession cannot be stated with certainty. Authentic documents of the fifteenth century speak of it as a regular and recognized custom at that time, but for earlier evidence there is only tradition to depend upon. The legend is that in 1347, when a pestilence raged amongst the cattle of the neighbourhood, the symptoms of which were a kind of trembling or nervous shaking followed by speedy death, the people thought that by imitating these symptoms, more or less, whilst imploring the intercession of St. Willibrord, the evil might be stayed. The desired result was obtained, and so the dancing procession to the saint's tomb became an annual ceremony. Nowadays it is made an act of expiation and penance on behalf of afflicted relations and especially in order to avert epilepsy, St. Vitus's dance, convulsions, and all nervous diseases. The function commences at nine o'clock in the morning at the bridge over the Sure, with a sermon by the parish priest (formerly the abbot of the monastery); after this the procession moves toward the basilica, through the chief streets of the town, a distance of about 1.5 kilometres. Three steps forward are taken, then two back, so that five steps are required in order to advance one pace. The results is that it is well after midday before the last of the dancers has reached the church. They go four or five abreast, holding each other by the hand or arm. Many bands accompany them, playing a traditional melody which has been handed down for centuries. A large number of priests and religious also accompany the procession and not infrequently there are several bishops as well. On arrival at the church, the dance is continued around the tomb of St. Willibrord, when litanies and prayers in his honour are recited, and the whole concludes with Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. Though curious and even somewhat ludicrous, the people perform it in all seriousness and as a true act of devotion. It usually attracts to Echternach a great concourse of tourists as well as pilgrims and as many as ten thousand people generally take part in it. The procession took place annually without intermission until 1777. Then, on account of some abuses that had crept in, the music and dancing were forbidden by the Archbishop of Trier, and in1786 Joseph II abolished the procession altogether. Attempts were made to revive it ten years later but the French Revolution effectually prevented it. It was recommenced, however, in 1802 and has continued ever since. In 1826 the Government tried to change the day to a Sunday, but since 1830 it has always taken place on Whit Tuesday, as formerly.

STE-MARTHE, Gallia Christiana (Paris, 1785), XIII; MARTENE AND DURAND, Voyage littéraire de deux Bénédicitns (Paris, 1724), III; MIGNE, Dict. des Abbayes (Paris, 1856); KRIER, La Procession dansante à Echternach (Luxemburg 1888); REINERS, Die St. Wilibrords Stiftung Echternach (Luxemburg, 1896);TAUNTON, Echternach and the Dancing Pilgrims in Catholic World (New York, 1891), LXV

G. CYPRIAN ALSTON

Julius Echter von Mespelbrunn

Prince-Bishop of Würzburg, b. 18 March, 1545, in the Castle of Mespelbrunn, Spessart (Bavaria); d. 13 Sept., 1617, at Würzburg. Descended from an ancient family in the service of the archbishops of Mainz, he received a good education in the schools of that city, also at Louvain, Douai, Paris, Angers, Pavia, and Rome; it was in Rome that he became a licentiate of canon and civil law. In 1567 he entered on his duties as canon of Würzburg, an office to which he had been appointed in 1554; in 1570 he became the dean of the cathedral chapter, and in 1573, at the age of twenty-eight, even before his ordination to the priesthood, was appointed Prince-Bishop of Würzburg. Various causes had combined to bring the diocese into a sad state. Deeply in debt and poorly administered, it had an almost entirely Protestant population. The clergy, in point of virtue and learning, were for the most part unequal to their task, and the cathedral chapter was adverse to any ecclesiastical reform. During the first ten years of Echter's government the attempt to unite the Abbey of Fulda and the Bishopric of Würzburg, after the deposition of the Prince-Abbot Balthasar von Dernbach, caused much confusion. This was due to the youthful ambition of Echter, and not, as some wish to interpret it, a sign of any anti-Catholic sentiments on his part. From the outset he endeavoured to carry out a thorough ecclesiastical restoration. For this reason he encouraged, as far as possible, the Jesuits and promoted their beneficient ministry. In the same spirit he conceived the plan of founding a university at Würzburg, and despite all difficulties it was solemnly opened (2 Jan., 1582) and became a model for all similar Counter-Reformation institutions. Under the Jesuits it flourished, grew rapidly, and furnished the see with the priests and officials needed to counterbalance the more or less irreligious temper of the population. The bishop was now able to take decisive steps against Protestantism. He banished all Lutheran preachers from his territory and removed all priests who were unwilling to observe the rules of their office. the public officials had to be Catholics, and none but Catholic teachers could be appointed. He began, moreover, courses of careful instruction for non-Catholics, and to some extent threatened them with penalties and even with banishment. Within three years about 100,000 returned to the Catholic Church. Public worship was also improved by the introduction of new devotions, processions, and the establishment of confraternities. Bishop Echter restored ruinous monasteries or devoted their revenues to the erection of new parishes and to the building of three hundred new churches. The tapering towers of these churches, called after the bishop "Julius towers", still preserve his memory. His most beneficial and lasting monument, after the university, is the Julius Hospital, which he founded with the endowment of the abandoned monastery of Heiligenthal. By skilful administration he improved the decadent economic conditions of his ecclesiastical states, reduced taxes, perfected the administration of justice, and established many primary schools. In a word, he proved himself one of the most capable rulers of his time. Not only in his own diocese did he display an extraordinary and varied activity, but as the founder and soul of the Catholic League, he exercised a decisive influence on the future of Germany.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER.

Johann Eck (Eckius)

Theologian and principal adversary of Luther, b. 15 Nov., 1486, at Eck in Swabia; d. 10 Feb., 1543, at Ingolstadt. His family name was Maier, and his father, Michael Maier, was for many years magistrate in the town, the latinized name of which, Eckius or Eccius, was adopted after 1505 by Johann. His uncle, Martin Maier, pastor at Rothenburg on the Neckar, received Johann in his house (1495) and educated him. In 1498, when twelve years old, he was admitted to the Heidelberg University; thence he went in 1499 to Tübingen where he received the degree of Master of Arts in 1501; then to Cologne and in 1502 to Freiburg in the Breisgau. After his graduation in the faculty of arts he began the study of philosophy and theology, took courses at the same time in jurisprudence, physics, mathematics, and geography, joined the Humanistic movement, and in addition to Latin, learned Hebrew and Greek. Among his instructors at the university were many distinguished scholars. His uncle now withdrew his allowance and Eck was obliged to earn his livelihood as a tutor while continuing his studies. In 1505 he was appointed rector of the Artistenburse zum Pfau, i.e., principal of the hall for students in arts at Freiburg, and received the degree of Bachelor of Theology; he lectured on the "Sentences" in 1506; was promoted to the licentiate in 1509; and in 1510, when twenty-four years old, he received the degree of Doctor of Theology. He had been ordained to the priesthood in 1508 with a papal dispensation from the age-requirement. Shortly after graduating as doctor, he was invited (1510) by the Dukes of Bavaria to the professorship of theology in Ingolstadt. He was appointed pro-chancellor of the university in 1512, and during his professorate of thirty-two years filled repeatedly the offices of dean, pro-rector, and rector; he also served as pastor and was appointed canon in Eichstätt. At Freiburg and during his earlier years at Ingolstadt, his literary activity was remarkable, not only in theology but also in other departments of science, as is evidenced by his writings which have been preserved partly in print and partly in MS. He engaged in geographical research and published a series of philosophical works, some of which were to serve as textbooks in the faculty of arts at Ingolstadt. In these writings he attempts to combine in a rational synthesis the advantages of the older philosophy with those of the new. His principal theological work during this period, entitled "Chrysopassus", treats of predestination with special reference to the dogmas of grace and free will which were so soon to become, in consequence of Luther's outbreak, the centre of sharp discussion. The tenor of this treatise, written when its author was only twenty-eight years old, evinces both confidence and modesty.

Luther's appearance, and especially the Disputation at Leipzig (1519), formed the turning-point in Eck's intellectual development and in his activity as a theologian. Thenceforth he is a prominent figure in the history of that period. With a clear insight into the meaning of Lutheranism, he was the first to champion the cause of Catholic teaching against Protestant error; and he became Luther's ablest opponent, skilful, untiring, and thoroughly equipped in theology. The rest of his life was spent in conflict with the Reformers in Germany and Switzerland. He defended the Catholic Church, its doctrines and its institutions, in his writings, in public debates, in his speeches at the diets, and in his diplomatic missions. For the betterment of ecclesiastical life and the spread of genuine reform he laboured earnestly by preaching to the people and by insisting on the scientific education of the clergy. As a reply to Luther's "theses" he wrote his "Obelisci", originally intended solely for the Bishop of Eichstätt. Both Luther and Karlstadt answered bitterly and then it was agreed to submit the points at issue to the test of a public debate, which was held in Leipzig, 27 June-15 July, 1519. Eck came off victorious, exposed Luther's heresy, and won over as a loyal adherent to the Catholic standard, George, Duke of Saxony. During the same year he published several essays attacking the tenets of Luther, and grew steadily in prominence as an authority on theological questions. In 1520 he visited Rome to report on the condition of affairs in Germany and to secure the condemnation of Luther's heresy. He submitted his essay on the Primacy of Peter to Leo X, was appointed prothonotary Apostolic, and was charged as papal legate, along with two other legates, Aleander and Caracciolo, to carry out in Germany the provisions of the Bull "Exsurge Domine", which excommunicated Luther and condemned his 41 theses. The execution of this mandate was beset with difficulties on every side. Eck, through his "Epistola ad Carolum V" (1521), admonished Emperor Charles to enforce the papal ban. In the same year he went to Rome again, principally at the behest of the Bavarian dukes for whom he acted as counsellor in ecclesiastical affairs, and made a third visit to Rome in 1523. Meanwhile (1522) he had induced the Bavarian dukes to publish an edict in defence of the Catholic Faith. While in Rome he procured for the dukes, among other privileges, the power of enacting, independently of the bishops, decrees for the moral reformation of the clergy; and furthermore the right to appropriate, for use against heretics and Turks, a fifth part of all church revenues.

Eck in the meantime combated Lutheranism by his letters and essays. Between the years 1522 and 1526 he published eight voluminous treatises against Luther. Through his influence the University of Ingolstadt retained its strictly Catholic attitude and strenuously opposed the rising Protestant institutions. Eck had also a considerable share in organizing the "Catholic Federation", founded 5 June, 1524, by the leaders in Church and State for the purpose of safeguarding the ancient faith and enforcing the Edict of Worms. He also defended in numerous essays the traditional doctrines of the Church against Zwingli and his adherents, and participated in the religious discussion in Baden (1526). When the Protestants, at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, promulgated the "Augsburg Confession", defining their religious views, Eck headed the Catholic champions upon whom the refutation of the articles in this confession devolved. Together with Wimpina and Cochlaeus he represented the Catholic party at the conference (16 Aug.) between Catholic and Lutheran theologians relative to the "Confessio" and its "Confutatio"; and as theologian he served on the sub-committee which canvassed the results of the conference. Zwingli also had presented at Augsburg a Confession of Faith and this Eck alone refuted. Eck then drew up 404 heretical theses upon which he challenged the Protestant theologians to public debate. The challenge was not accepted; the only answer from the Protestant party was a torrent of abuse. In the negotiations relative to the Council of Trent, Eck was consulted by the emperor, Charles V, as well as by the pope, Paul III, and was charged by the latter with preliminary work for the council. At the religious disputation in Worms (1540), Eck again appeared as the chief Catholic representative and debated with Melanchthon on the issues involved in the "Augsburg Confession". This discussion was continued during the Diet of Ratisbon (1541) to which, besides Eck, the emperor delegated as spokesmen on the Catholic side, Julius Pflug and Gropper. Eck maintained clearly and decisively the Catholic position, and quite disapproved the "Ratisbon Interim". He also went on a mission to England and the Netherlands in the interest of the Catholic cause. In 1529 the bishops of Denmark invited Eck and Cochlaeus to the discussion at Copenhagen; but neither appeared. Eck fully deserved the prominence gained by him during the struggle against Protestantism. He was the most distinguished theologian of the time in Germany, the most scholarly and courageous champion of the Catholic Faith. Frank and even in disposition, he was also inspired by a sincere love of truth; but he showed none the less an intense self-consciousness and the jovial bluntness of speech which characterized the men of that day. His adversaries, lampooning him publicly, taxed him with drunkenness and immorality; but the general tone of the writings published against Eck and the readiness of the Protestants to calumniate their victorious opponent, arouse strong suspicion as to the truth of these accusations and make them, so far as the evidence goes, altogether improbable. In rebuttal it should be noted that Eck received the Last Sacraments with exemplary piety, and that his funeral in the Frauenkirche at Ingolstadt was marked by great solemnity.

As a writer Eck was prolific. His most important works are: "Loci communes adversus Lutherum et alios hostes ecclesiae" (Arguments against Luther and Other Enemies of the Church), printed first in 1525, 45th edition in 1576; essays on the Primacy of Peter, Penance, the Sacrifice of the Mass, Purgatory, etc. He also published numerous polemical writings against Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, and other leaders of the new religious movements. He compiled the results of the numerous disputations in which he participated and the sermons he preached on various subjects. In 1539 he published a German version of the Scriptures, translating the Old Testament from the original and adopting Emser's translation of the New Testament. Eck, however, was abler as a theologian than as a stylist. He also published a collection of most of his writings prior to 1535 entitled "Opera Johannis Eckii contra Ludderum in 5 partes" (Ingolstadt, 1530-1535). In this edition parts I-II contain his polemical writings on the Primacy, Penance, etc. against Luther; parts III-IV, his reports of the debates and his polemics against Zwingli, Karlstadt, and Bucer; also the "Loci Communes", part V (4 vols.), his Latin sermons.

WIEDEMANN, "Dr. Johann Eck" (Ratisbon, 1865), with list of Eck's works; BRECHER in "Allgemeine deutsche Biographie" (Leipzig, 1877), V, 596-602; GUENTHER, "Johann Eck als Geograph" in "Forschungen zur Kultur- und Literaturgesch. Bayerns" (Munich, 1894), II, 140-162; SCHNEID, "Dr. Johann Eck u. das kirchliche Zinsverbot" in "Historisch-politisch Blätter" (1891), CVIII, 241 sq., 321 sq., 473 sq., 570 sq., 659 sq., 789 sq.; BAUCH, "Die Anfaenge des Humanismus in Ingolstadt" (Munich, 1901); GREVING, "Johann Eck als junger Gelehrter" in "Reformationsgesch. Studien u. Texte" (Muenster, 1906), I.

J.P. KIRSCH

Anselm Eckart

Missionary, born at Bingen, Germany, 4 August, 1721; died at the College of Polstok, Polish Russia, 29 June, 1809. Entering the Society of Jesus at nineteen, he was sent as a missionary to Brazil. Two years after his arrival in that country, he and his brethren were seized like felons and carried to Portugal, where they languished in prison till death released them or till the king, in whose name it was all done, was summoned by his own Judge. Father Eckart was confined for eighteen years in the underground dungeons of Almeida and St. Julian. He wrote the story of his own sufferings and those of his companions in prison. Upon the death of Joseph I of Portugal in 1777, Pombal fell into disgrace, and those of his victims who survived were released from their loathsome dungeons. The Society of Jesus, which had been suppressed four years earlier by the Brief of Clement XIV, had continued to exist in Russia. Father Eckart applied for readmission, and for thirty-two years following had the consolation of wearing the habit of the proscribed order. After filling the office of master of novices at Dünaburg, he was sent to the College of Polstok, where this venerable confessor of Jesus Christ, the last survivor, perhaps, of the cruelties of Pombal, preserved in extreme old age the same vigour of soul which had sustained him in the missions and in captivity. He died full of days and merits in the eighty-eighth year of his age and the sixty-ninth after his admission to the Society.

EDWARD P. SPILLANE

Eckebert

(Ekbert, Egbert), Abbot of Schönau, born in the early part of the twelfth century of a distinguished family along the Middle Rhine; died 28 March, 1184, in the Abbey of Schönau. He was for a time canon in the collegiate church of Sts. Cassius and Florentius at Bonn. In 1155 he became a Benedictine at Schönau in the Diocese of Trier, and in 1166, after the death of the first abbot, Hildelin, he was placed at the head of the monastery. A man of great zeal, he preached and wrote much for the salvation of souls and the conversion of heretics. The Cathari, then numerous in the Rhineland, gave him especial concern. While acanon at Bonn he often had occasion to debate with heretics, and after his monastic profession, was invited by Archbishop Rainald of Cologne to debate publicly with the leaders of the sect in Cologne itself. His chief works are "Sermones contra Catharos" with extracts on the Manichæans, from St. Augustine (P.L., CXCV); "De Laube Crucis" (ibid.); "Soliloquium seuMeditationes" (ibid.); "Ad Beatam Virginem Deiparam sermo Panegyricus" (ibid., CLXXXIV); "De sanctâ Elizabethâ virgine", a biography of his sister, a Benedictine nun and a famous visionary and mystic (see ELIZABETH OF SCHÖNAU), a portion of which is in P.L., CXCV, also in "Acta SS", June, IV, 501 sqq. (ed. Palmé, 1867). A complete edition of his works is found in Roth, "Die Visionen der hl. Elisabeth und die Schriften der Aebte Ekbert und Emecho von Schönau" (Brünn, 1884).

FRANCIS J. SCHAEFER

Johann Georg von Eckhart

(Called Eccard before he was ennobled)

German historian, b. at Duingen in the principality of Kalenberg, 7 Sept., 1664; d. at Würzburg, 9 Feb., 1730. After a good preparatory training at Schulpforta he went to Leipzig, where at first, at the desire of his mother, he studied theology, but soon turned his attention to philology and history. On completing his course he became secretary to Field-Marshal Count Flemming, the chief minister of the Elector of Saxony; after a short time, however, he went to Hanover to find a permanent position. Owing to his extensive learning he was soon useful to the famous historian Leibniz, who, in 1694, took Eckhart as assistant and was, until death, his large-hearted patron and generous friend. Through the efforts of Leibniz Eckhart was appointed professor of history at Helmstedt in 1706, and in 1714 councillor at Hanover. After the death of Leibniz he was made librarian and historiographer of the royal family of Hanover, and was soon after ennobled by Emperor Charles VI, to whom he had dedicated his work "Origines Austriacae". For reasons which have never been clearly explained he gave up his position, in 1723, and fled from Hanover, perhaps on account of debt, to the Benedictine monastery of Corvey, and thence to the Jesuits at Cologne, where he became a Catholic. Not long after this the Prince-Bishop of Würzburg, Johann Philipp von Schönborn, appointed Eckhart his librarian and historiographer. In his work Eckhart was influenced by the new school of French historians, and gave careful attention to the so-called auxiliary sciences, above all to diplomatics; he also strove earnestly to follow a strictly scientific method in his treatment of historical materials. Together with Leibniz he may be considered as a founder of the critical school of historical writing. Besides the help he rendered Leibniz, of whom he prepared an affectionately respectful obituary (in Murr, "Journal für Kunstgeschichte", VII), he issued a number of independent works. His chief work, while professor at Helmsted, is his "Historia studii etymologici linguae germanicae haetenus impensi" (Hanover, 1711), a literary and historical study of all works bearing on the investigation of the Teutonic languages. At Hanover he compiled a "Corpus historicum medii aevi" (Leipzig, 1723), in two volumes; at Würzburg he published the "Commentarii de rebus Franciae Orientalis et episcopatus Wirceburgensis" (1729), also in two volumes, an excellent work whose rich materials are treated with scientific exactness.

PATRICIUS SCHLAGER.

Meister Johann Eckhart

(Also spelled Eckard, Eccard. Meister means "the Master").

Dominican preacher, theologian and mystic, born about 1260 at Hochheim, near Gotha; died in 1327 at Cologne. He made his philosophical and theological studies in the Dominican Order. Although a profound mystic he was also an able man of affairs, admirably manifesting the spirit of his order by uniting throughout his career great activity with contemplation. After a period of teaching he was made, in 1298, prior of the Dominican convent at Erfurt and vicar-provincial of Thuringia. Two years later he began to lecture at Paris, where in 1302 his order gave him the degree of Master of Sacred Theology. In the following year he was elected provincial of the province of Saxony, to which office he was re-elected in 1307, when he was also appointed vicar-general of Bohemia and charged to reform its convents. His term of office having expired in 1311, he again took a professorial chair at Paris, whence he went in 1314 to teach at Strasbourg. After three years he was made prior at Frankfort. He finally returned to the schools in 1320, when he was made first professor of his order at Cologne, where he remained until his death.

Eckhart's activity was also displayed in the pulpit, of which he was an illustrious ornament, and in his writings in the form of treatises and sayings. As a preacher he disdained rhetorical flourish and avoided oratorical passion; but effectively employed the simple arts of oratory and gave remarkable expression to a hearty sympathy. Using pure language and a simple style, he has left us in his sermons specimens of the beautiful German prose of which he was a master. In these sermons, really short catacheses, we find frequent citations from such writers as Seneca and Avicenna, as well as from the theologians and Fathers. His discourses are directed to the intellect rather than to the will and are remarkable for their depth of mystical teaching, which only those who were advanced in the spiritual life could fully appreciate. His favourite themes are the Divine essence, the relations between God and man, the faculties, gifts, and operations of the human soul, the return of all created things to God. These and kindred subjects he develops more at length in his treatises, which partake of the catechetical character of his sermons. In his sayings he presents them in short and pithy form. Although the writings of Eckhart do not present a connected and studied system, they reveal the mind of the philosopher, the theologian, and the mystic. The studies of Henry Denifle, O.P., while showing Eckhart to have been less of a philosopher than he was supposed to be, show also that he was a Scholastic theologian of very superior merit, although not of the first order. He followed the teaching of St. Albert the Great and of St. Thomas Aquinas, but departed from their Scholastic method and form. Some opponents of Scholasticism, admiring his aphorisms and originality of method, have pronounced him to be the greatest thinker before Luther. And there have been Protestants who called him a Reformer. It was, however, as a mystic that Eckhart excelled. He is held by many to have been the greatest of the German mystics, and by all to have been the father of German mysticism. To Tauler and Suso he gave not only ideas but also a clear, simple style, possessing a heartiness like that of his own. Although he frequently quotes from the writings of the Pseudo-Areopagite and of John Scotus Eriugena, in his mysticism he follows more closely the teaching of Hugh of St. Victor.

The very nature of Eckhart's subjects and the untechnicality of his language were calculated to cause him to be misunderstood, not only by the ordinary hearers of his sermons, but also by the Schoolmen who listened to him or read his treatises. And it must be admitted that some of the sentences in his sermons and treatises were Beghardic, quietistic, or pantheistic. But although he occasionally allowed harmful sentences to proceed from his lips or his pen, he not unfrequently gave an antidote in the same sermons and treatises. And the general tenor of his teaching shows that he was not a Beghard, nor a quietist, nor a pantheist. While at Strasbourg, although he had no relations with the Beghards, he was suspected of holding their mystical pantheism. Later, at Frankfort suspicion was cast upon his moral conduct, but it was evidently groundless; for, after an investigation ordered by the Dominican general, he was appointed to a prominent position at Cologne. Finally the charge was made at a general chapter of his order, held at Venice in 1325, that some of the German brethren were disseminating dangerous doctrine. Father Nicholas, O.P., of Strasburg, having been ordered by Pope John XXII to make investigation, declared in the following year that the works of Eckhart were orthodox. In January, 1327, Archbishop Heinrich of Cologne undertook an independent inquiry, whereupon Eckhart and Father Nicholas appealed to Rome against his action and authority in the matter. But the next month, from the pulpit of the Dominican church in Cologne, Eckhart repudiated the unorthodox sense in which some of his utterances could be interpreted, retracted all possible errors, and submitted to the Holy See. His profession of faith, repudiation of error, and submission to the Holy See were declared by Pope John XXII in the Bull "Dolentes referimus" (27 March, 1329), by which the pontiff condemned seventeen of Eckhart's propositions as heretical, and eleven as ill-sounding, rash, and suspected of heresy (Denzinger, Enchiridion, no. 428 sqq.; Hartzheim, Conc. Germ., IV, 631).

The entire works of Eckhart have not been preserved. Pfeiffer in "Deutsche Mystiker des 14. Jahrhunderts" (1857), II, has given an incomplete version of his sermons. Additions have been made by Sievers in "Zeitschrift für deutsche Alterhümer", XV, 373 sqq., Wackernagelin "Altdeutsche Predigten" (1876), 156 sqq., 172 sqq.; Berlinger in "Alemannia", III, 15 sqq.; Bech in "Germania", VIII, 223 sqq.; X, 391 sqq.; Jundt in "Histoire du Panthéisme" (1875), 231 sqq. There is a translation in High German by Landauer, "Meister Eckharts mystiche Schriften" (1903). Eckhart's Latin works bore the title "Opus Tripartitum". In the first part (Opus propositionum) there are over one thousand theses, which are explained in the second part (Opus quæstionum), and proved in the third part (Opus expositionum). Of these only the three prologues are known. Denifle discovered also a portion of the third part, part of an explanation of Genesis, a commentary on Exodus, Sirach, xxiv, Wisdom, and other fragments.

A.L. MCMAHON

Joseph Hilarius Eckhel

German numismatist, b. 13 January, 1737, at Enzesfeld near Pottenstein, in Lower Austria, where his father, Johann Anton Eckhel, was steward to the Prince of Montecuculi; d. 16 May, 1798. In 1745 he was sent to study in Vienna, in 1751 was admitted into the Society of Jesus, and thirteen years later was ordained priest. He had studied humanities in Leoben and philosophy in Graz, besides mathematics, Greek, and Hebrew. The first fruit of his literary labours, produced in his twenty-first year, was an "Exercitium grammaticum in prophetiam Obadiæ". This he published as an appendix to the "Institutiones linguæ sacræ" of P.J. Engstler. After his ordination, and probably for some time before, he was professor at the Jesuit gymnasia at Leoben and Steyer; probably also at Judenburg, and finally at the college of Vienna, where he taught poetry and rhetoric, and acquired a mastery of Latin, which he handled with ease and elegance. We still possess two rather comprehensive odes from his pen, "Plausus Urbis" and "Plausus Ruris". He left, besides, two German poems written for special occasions, in the style of that period, and a speech of the same nature delivered on the occasion of the journey of Emperor Joseph II to Italy.

How he became a numismatist, Eckhel himself has told us in the preface to his "Numi veteres anecdoti". Whilst teaching at the Academic Gymnasium he became interested in its cabinet of coins, which was under the supervision of his fellow Jesuit, P. Khell. The collection, containing principally Greek coins, had attained considerable size, through the exertions of the learned Erasmus Fröhlich, who had edited a catalogue of most of the ancient coins; Eckhel set to work selecting the coins which were as yet unknown and unedited, and added thereto the unedited coins of the choice collections of Count Michael Viczay and Paul Festetics. Forced by ill-health to abandon teaching, he devoted himself entirely to numismatics and archæology. With the permission of his superior he went to Italy in 1772 for his further education. In Bologna and Rome he studied all the accessible coin collections, but found his richest treasures in Florence. Raimundo Cocchi, prefect of the Archducal Museum, received him most cordially and obtained for him the commission to arrange the coins which had been collected by Cardinal Leopoldo de'Medici, and which had afterwards been very considerably increased. Cocchi, who died shortly after this, recommended Eckhel to the Archduke Peter Leopold, who in turn introduced him to his mother, the Empress Maria Theresa. Meanwhile (1773) the Society of Jesus was suppressed, and Eckhel, like his brethren, was secularized. Returning to Vienna through the South of France in January, 1774, he was delighted to be entrusted by the empress with the task of transferring the collection which belonged to the university college of the Jesuits, to the court cabinet, where, however, it received a separate place. In March of the same year, having acquired an excellent reputation as a numismatist, he was named director of the cabinet of ancient coins, with Duval as his superior. After the latter's death (1775) he received sole charge. Eckhel was commissioned to deliver bi-weekly lectures on numismatics in the coin cabinet. In the fall of 1775 he was promoted to the chair of antiquities and of the historical auxiliary sciences in the university. In the same year his first numismatic publication appeared.

J. von Bergmann writes of Eckhel's official work: "Eckhel, as is everywhere evident, was an expert administrator of the treasure committed to his charge. Without much ado, without ostentation, he wrote only what was needful and regarded merely that which was essential. Besides his very simple accounts and some reports written during the twenty-four years of his incumbency, only a very few documents concerning the collection of antique coins are in existence. He enriched the cabinet without advertising it." He obtained the means for these acquisitions from the proceeds of the sale of duplicates of gold and silver coins. The duplication of examples resulted from the amalgamation of the collection of Francis I with that of the imperial family. Moreover, the series of the Persian and Parthian kings were transferred from the Oriental to the ancient department. The collection of Duke Charles of Lorraine, that of the Count of Ariosti, and a selection of coins from the collections of suppressed monasteries were added. By means of embassies and lucky finds the coin cabinet acquired important additions (e.g. those of Osztropataka and Szilagy-Somlyo). As a professor in the university Eckhel lectured on ancient numismatics. His delivery is described as being simple, clear, instructive, inspiring, and often abounding in humour. He was highly respected by his pupils. That he also enjoyed high repute among his colleagues is attested by his appointment as dean of the philosophical faculty in 1789. However, he soon resigned this position.

The first numismatic work published by Eckhel was "Numi veteres anecdoti ex museis Cæsareo Vindobonensi, Florentino Magni Ducis Etruriæ, Granelliano nunc Cæsareo, Vitzaiano, Festeticsiano, Savorgnano Veneto aliisque" (Vienna, 1775, in two 4to sections with 17 copperplates). "Catalogus Musei Cæsariensis" (Vienna, in two large folio parts with numerous illustrations) followed four years later. Eckhel had given the collection entrusted to him an entirely new arrangement, discarding the time-honoured alphabetical order, and substituting quite a new system. He divided ancient numismatics into two departments: the first contained the coins minted by cities other than Rome, arranged according to the geographical situation of the countries as far as this was possible; the second comprised all the coins of the Roman Empire. First come the important but crude asses, then the unclassified pieces with the inscription Roma. They are followed by those of the various families, emperors, and empresses, all arranged as far as possible in chronological order. Those whose date could not be exactly obtained are placed after each emperor as unclassified in alphabetical succession. "By this method", says Eckhel, "the author was enabled to rectify countless errors which Mezzabarba had forced upon us in his General Catalogue" (Imperatorum Romanorum numismata, Milan, 1683). And to make these corrections principally led him to prepare this catalogue for print. In it he gives an account, not on outside authority, but from personal observation and after lengthy and painstaking research, of everything instructive which so numerous a collection presents. The work was written in Latin and, "contrary to the present ornamental style, in the simplest language". This catalogue was followed by "Sylloge II, numorum veterum anecdotorum Thesauri Cæsarei" and "Descriptio numorum Antiochiæ" (1786), then by the classical work "Doctrina numorum veterum", in eight volumes (1792-1798). Friedrich Kenner says of this: "Misguided dilettantism had produced most mischievous results in the field of numismatics. Lack of system, want of critical judgment, and the disorderly arrangement of the literature had begotten confusion and distrust, which prevented numismatics from taking the place among other sciences to which it was entitled. With his naturally critical eye, Eckhel mastered all the literature of his subject, eliminated errors and forgeries with the help of his profound learning, and then combined the results into an organic whole in his 'Doctrina numorum veterum'. . . . Eckhel has become the founder of the scientific numismatics of classical antiquity and taken his place alongside of his contemporaries, Heyne and Winckelmann. Numismatics, hitherto despised, he changed into a kind of encyclopedia of classical antiquities, which includes extensive and much-used sources for other branches of archæology." The addenda to this work which Eckhel entered in his manuscript copy were edited by his successor, Steinbüchel.

By command of Emperor Joseph II, Eckhel wrote an excellent manual, "Kurzgefasste Anfangsgründe zur alten Numismatik" (Vienna, 1787; 2nd ed., 1807). The work appeared in a Latin translation in 1799 and in a French revision in 1825. He edited, besides, "Choix des pierres gravées du Cabinet Imperial". Furthermore, a number of smaller treatises still exist in manuscript form. His "Inscriptiones veteres" was used by Theodore Mommsen. He also left an extensive correspondence with the most prominent representatives of his branch of learning (Abbé Barthélemy, R. Cocchi, Cousinéry, L. Lanzi, G. Marini, F. Séguier, and others).

Eckhel died shortly after the completion of his "Doctrina". He was, as Bergmann writes, "a man of firm and decided character, serious, but at the same time cheerful, indulging in sarcastic, and at times heated, attacks on cant and literary arrogance. He used his extensive learning to correct thousands of blunders committed by other writers, and was modest and not at all disputatious in his controversies. He spoke as he thought and acted as he spoke." Later scholars rank Eckhel's scientific importance equally high. On the first centenary of his birth a medal was struck (by Manfredini) with the inscription, SYSTEMATIS. REI. NVMARIÆ. ANTIQVÆ. CONDITORI. The distich which Michael Denis dedicated to his dead friend will vindicate its own truth:--

VON BERGMANN, Dem Andenken des Abbé J.H. Eckhel in Sitzungsberichte der phil. Classe der kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, XXIV (1857), 296-364; KENNER, Eckhel, ein Vortrag (Vienna, 1871); the same in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, V (1877), 633 sqq.

KARL DOMANIG

Eclecticism

(Gr. ek, legein; Lat. eligere, to select)

A philosophical term meaning either a tendency of mind in a thinker to conciliate the different views or positions taken in regard to problems, or a system in philosophy which seeks the solution of its fundamental problems by selecting and uniting what it regards as true in the various philosophical schools. In the first sense, eclecticism is a characteristic of all the great philosophers, with special development in some, such as Leibniz; an element of the integral method of philosophy more or less emphasized in the divers schools. The term eclectics, however, is properly applied to those who accept Eclecticism as the true and fundamental system of philosophy. It is with Eclecticism in this strict sense that we are dealing here.

As a rule, in the history of philosophy, Eclecticism follows a period of scepticism. In presence of conflicting doctrines regarding nature, life, and God, the human mind despairs of attaining scientific and exact knowledge about these important subjects. Eclecticism then aims at constructing a system broad and vague enough to include, or not to exclude, the principles of the divers schools, though giving at times more importance to those of one school, and apparently sufficient to furnish a basis for the conduct of life. In the latter period of Greek philosophy, during the two centuries preceding the Christian Era and the three centuries following, Eclecticism is represented among the Epicureans by Asclepiades of Bithynia; among the Stoics by Boethus, Panetius of Rhodes, (about 180-110 b.c.), Posidonius (about 50 b.c.), and later on by the neo-Cynics, Demetrius and Demonax (about a.d. 150); in the New Academy by Philo of Larissa (about 80 b.c.) and Antiochus of Ascalon (died 68 b.c.); in the Peripatetic School by Andronicus of Rhodes (about 70 b.c.), the editor and commentator of the works of Aristotle, and later on by Aristocles (about a.d. 180), Alexander of Aphrodisias (about a.d. 200), the physician Galen (a.d. 131-201), Porphyry in the third, and Simplicius in the sixth, century of our era. The eclectic system was, by its character, the one which was best suited to the practical mind of the Romans. With the exception of Lucretius's doctrine, their speculative philosophy was always and altogether eclectic, while Stoicism dominated in their ethical philosophy. Cicero is, in Rome, the best representative of this school. His philosophy is a mixture of the scepticism of the Middle Academy with Stoicism and Peripateticism. The School of the Sextians, with Quintus Sextius (80 b.c.), Sotion, and Celsus, was partly Stoic and Cynic, partly Pythagorean. Under the empire, Seneca, Epictetus the slave, and the Emperor Marcus Aurelius combined the principles of Stoicism with some doctrines taken from Platonism. The neo-Platonic School of Alexandria, in the second and third centuries after Christ, is considered by some as eclectic; but the designation is not exact. The school borrows, indeed, many of its principles from Pythagoreanism, Stoicism, Peripateticism, and especially from Platonism; but all these doctrines are dominated by and interpreted according to certain principles of religious mysticism which make this neo-Platonism an original though syncretic system. The same may be said of the Christian writers of this school who take some of their philosophical principles from the dominant systems, but who are guided in their choice as well as in their interpretation by the teaching of Christian revelation.

In modern times Eclecticism has been accepted in Germany by Wolff and his disciples. It has received its most characteristic form in France in the nineteenth century from Victor Cousin (1792-1867) and his school, which is sometimes called the Spiritualistic School. Drawn away from sensualism by the teaching of Royer Collard, Cousin seeks in the Scottish School a sufficient foundation for the chief metaphysical, moral, and religious truths. Failing in this attempt, he takes up the different doctrines then current; he is successively influenced by Maine de Biran whom he calls "the greatest metaphysician of our time", by the writings of Kant, and by personal intercourse with Schelling and Hegel; finally, he turns to the works of Plato, Plotinus, and Proclus, only to come back to Descartes and Leibniz. He then reaches the conclusion that the successive systems elaborated throughout the preceding ages contain the full development of human thought; that the complete truth is to be found in a system resulting from the happy fusion, under the guidance of common sense, of the fragmentary thoughts expressed by the different thinkers and schools of all ages. Four great systems, he says, express and summarize the whole development of human speculation: sensism, idealism, scepticism, and mysticism. Each contains a part of the truth; none possesses exclusively the whole truth. Human thought cannot invent any new system, nor can it neglect any of the old ones. Not the destruction of any of, but the reduction of all to one, will put us in possession of the truth.

There is, indeed, something true in Eclecticism. It would be folly for each thinker to deliberately ignore all that has been said and taught before him; such a method would render progress impossible. The experience and knowledge acquired by past ages is a factor in the development of human thought. The history of philosophy is useful; it places at our disposal the truths already discovered, and by showing us the errors into which philosophy has fallen, it guards us against them and against the principles or methods which have caused them. This is the element of value contained in the system. But Eclecticism errs when it substitutes for personal reflection as the primary source of philosophy a mere fusion of systems, or the history of philosophy for philosophy proper. Eclecticism does not furnish us with the ultimate principles of philosophy or the criterion of certitude. We cannot say that philosophy has reached the highest degree of precision either in its solution or in its presentation of every problem; nor that it knows all that can be known about nature, man, or God. But even if this were the case, the principles of Eclecticism cannot provide us with a firm, complete, and true system of philosophy. Cousin says that there is some truth in ever system; supposing this to be exact, this partial truth as evidently to be acquired at first through principles and a rule of certitude which are independent of Eclecticism. When Cousin declares that there is a mingling of truth and error in every system, he evidently assumes a principle superior and antecedent to the very principle of Eclecticism. The eclectic must first separate error from truth before building into a system the results of his discrimination. But this is possible only on the condition of passing a judgment upon each of these systems and therefore of having, quite apart from history, some rational principle as an ultimate criterion. In a word, Eclecticism, considered as a study of the opinions and theories of others in order to find in them some help and enlightenment, has its place in philosophy; it is a part of philosophic method; but as a doctrine it is altogether inadequate.

SUIDAS ed BERNHARDY, Lexikon (2 vols., Halle, 1853); RITTER AND PRELLER, Historia Philosophiœ Grœcœ (Gotha, 1888); ZELLER, Die Philosophie der Griechen (Leipzig, 1892); ALLEYNE, Eclectics (London, 1881); COUSIN, Histoire générale de la philosophie (Paris, 1884); LEROUX, Réfutation de l'Eclectisme (Paris, 1839); TAINE, Les philosophes classiques du XIXe siècle (Paris, 1876), vi, xii; MERCIER, Critériologie générale (Louvain, 1900), III, i.

G.M. SAUVAGE

Ecstasy

Supernatural ecstasy may be defined as a state which, while it lasts, includes two elements:

• the one, interior and invisible, when the mind rivets its attention on a religious subject;
• the other, corporeal and visible, when the activity of the senses is suspended, so that not only are external sensations incapable of influencing the soul, but considerable difficulty is experienced in awakening such sensation, and this whether the ecstatic himself desires to do so, or others attempt to quicken the organs into action.

That quite a large number of the saints have been granted ecstasies is attested by hagiology; and nowadays even free-thinkers are slow to deny historical facts that rest on so solid a basis. They no longer endeavour, as did their predecessors of the eighteenth century, to explain them away as grounded on fraud; several, indeed, abandoning the pathological theory, current in the nineteenth century, have advocated the psychological explanation, though they exaggerate its force.

FALSE VIEWS ON THE QUESTION OF ECSTASY

The first three errors here mentioned are psychological in nature; they fail to estimate at its proper value the content of ecstasy; the other false theories spoken of identify this state with certain morbid physical or psychological conditions.

(1) Certain infidel philosophers maintain that during an ecstasy there is a lessening of intellectual power, that at a certain stage there is an utter loss of the ego, an annihilation of the faculties. This is the theory of Murisier and of Leuba. The arguments for this view are based upon an exaggerated interpretation of certain phrases used by the mystics. Their accounts, however (those, for instance, of Blessed Angela of Foligno), give the lie to such an explanation. The mystics state clearly that they experience, not only the fullness, but the superabundance of intelligence, an increase of activity of the highest faculties. Now, in a science that is based on observation, as is mysticism, we are not justified in brushing aside the numerous and consistent testimonies of those who have tested the facts, and putting in their place the creations of the imagination.

(2) The theory of unconsciousness distorts the facts so unscrupulously that some writers have preferred a theory less crude, i.e., the emotional explanation. The ecstatic, it is admitted, is not buried in a heavy sleep; rather, he experiences violent emotions, in consequence of which he loses the use of the senses; and as there is nothing new to occupy his attention, it follows that his mind is taken up by some trifling thought, so trifling, indeed, that these writers deem it unworthy of their notice. This theory clashes less with historical data than does the first, since it does not wholly eliminate the activity of the ecstatic; but it denies half the facts emphatically urged by the mystical writers.

(3) It has been said that ecstasy is perhaps a phenomenon wholly natural, such as might well be occasioned by a strong concentration of the mind on a religious subject. But if we are not to rest satisfied with arbitrary conjectures, we must show that similar facts have been observed in spheres of thought other than purely religious. The ancients attributed natural ecstasies to three or four sages, such as Archimedes and Socrates, but as the present write has proved elsewhere, these stories are founded either on inconclusive arguments or upon false interpretation of the facts (Des graces dUoraison, c. xxxi).

(4) The rigid condition of the ecstaticUs body has given rise to a fourth error. Ecstasy, we are told, is but another form of lethargy or catalepsy. The loss of consciousness, however, that accompanies these latter states points to a marked difference.

(5) In view of this, some have sought to identify ecstasy with the hypnotic state. Physically, there are usually some points of contrast. Ecstasy is always accompanied by noble attitudes of the body, whereas in hospitals one often marks motions of the body that are convulsive or repelling; barring, of course, any counter-command of the hypnotist. The chief difference, though, is to be found in the soul. The intellectual faculties, in the case of the saints, became keener. The sick in our hospitals, on the contrary, experience during their trances a lessening of their intelligences, while the gain is only a slight representation in the imagination. A single idea, let it be ever so trivial, e.g. that of a flower, or a bird, is strong enough to fasten upon it their profound and undivided attention. This is what is meant by the narrowing of the field of consciousness; and this is precisely the starting-point of all theories that have been advanced to explain hypnotic ecstasy. Moreover, the hallucination noticed in the case of these patients consists always of representations of the imagination. They are visual, auricular, or tactual; consequently they differ widely from the purely intellectual perceptions which the saints usually enjoy. It is no longer possible, then, to start with the extremely simple hypothesis that the two kinds of phenomena are one and the same.

A comparison of the effects that follow these states will bring out more clearly the essential difference between the two.

• The neuropath, after an hypnotic trance, is dull, lifeless, and depressed.
• His will is extremely weak. In this abnormal weakness is to be sought the reason why the subject can no longer resist suggestion. These poor creatures, distraught, listless, and helpless, pass their days in idle dreams.
• The level of their morality is frequently almost as low as that of their intelligence.

From a threefold point of view, then, there is a contrast between their case and that of the saints who have been granted ecstasies.

• The latter possess strong intellects, conceiving projects lofty and difficult in the execution; in proof of this assertion we might appeal to the history of the founders of religious orders.
• Their will-power is second to none in energy; so strong, indeed, as to enable them to break through all opposition, especially that which arises from their own nature.
• Lastly, the saints keep before them a moral ideal of a lofty character, the need of self-forgetfulness if they would give themselves to the glory of God and the temporal and spiritual welfare of their fellow-men.

The hysterical subject of hypnotism, on the contrary combines in himself none of these noble qualities.

(6) An attempt has been made to rank ecstasy with somnambulism, with which have also been classed, but with greater reason, the trances of spirit mediums. The case which most approaches, on the surface, the ecstasy of the saints is that of Helen Smith, of Geneva, whom Professor Flournoy studied carefully during the closing years of the nineteenth century. During the crises of spontaneous somnambulism she described her visions in word or in writing. At one time she saw the inhabitants of the planet Mars, at another she dwelt among the Arabs or the Hindus of the fourteenth century. In 1904 she had crises lasting a quarter of an hour, during which she painted in oil pictures of Christ and the Madonna, though she was quite unconscious of what she was doing. The ecstasies of the saints were, it was thought, of exactly the same nature. There are, however, some striking differences:

• From the moral viewpoint the visions of the saints produce a remarkable change in their manner of life, and lead them to the exercise of the most difficult virtues. Helen experiences nothing of the kind. She is a good woman, that is all.
• Unlike the saints, she remembers nothing of what she has seen.
• While the vision lasts, the faculties at play are not the same. In the case of the saints, the activity of the imagination is arrested during the culminating periods, and the intellect undergoes a marvelous expansion. In the case of Helen, the imagination alone was at work, and its objects were of the most commonplace character. Not a single elevated thought; simply descriptions of houses, animals, or plants--nothing but a mere copy of what we see on earth. Such descriptions serve only as stories to amuse children.

(7) A seventh theory would identify ecstasy with the wild reveries and disordered fancies occasioned by the use of alcohol, ether, chloroform, opium, morphine, or nitrous oxide. In the first place, the physical condition is quite different. No one, for instance, would mistake the exalted attitude of an ecstatic for that of a man under the influence of narcotics. Secondly, the mental perceptions are not the same in character. For if the slave of the drugs we have mentioned above does not lose all consciousness, if he still retains any ideas, they consist of extravagant, incoherent images, whereas the ideas and thoughts of the mystic are throughout coherent and elevated. Finally, the victims of alcohol and of opium, on recovering from their debauch, remain in a state of sottishness. Thought and action are simultaneously lessened; the moral and the social life have equally suffered. The use of narcotics has never enabled a man to lead a purer life or to better himself and others; experience points to the contrary.

These, then, are the false views that have been entertained on the question of ecstasy. Nor should it be a matter of surprise that free-thinkers should have ventured on these explanations. It is but the conclusion that follows logically from the principles with which they start, i.e., there is no such thing as the supernatural. They must, then, at any cost, seek the causes in natural phenomena. (See CONTEMPLATION.)

AUG. POULAIN

Ecuador

Republic of Ecuador (La RepÚblica del Ecuador).

An independent state of South America, bounded on the north by Colombia, on the east by Brazil, on the south by Peru, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The northwest corner of the state is crossed by the equator, hence its name.

No part of America has been so prominent for scientific explorations, specially geographic and physiographic, carried out on a large scale in the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth century. One, sent out in 1735 by the French Government for the purpose of measuring the meridian near the equator, recalls the names of La Condamine and Bouguer. The other (1790-1804) forever associates Alexander von Humboldt with the history of the New World.

AREA, PHYSICAL FEATURES, ETC.

Ecuador is the third smallest of the South American republics. It forms, approximately, an isosceles triangle wedged in between Colombia and Peru. Indenting the southwest coast is the Gulf of Guayaquil within which lies the large island of Puná. As in the case of other South American republics, the boundaries of Ecuador are ill-defined and subject to modification by treaty. Its area is variously given as from 80,300 to 152,000 sq. miles, to which must be added the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific, lying about 90°-92° west long., 10 degrees off the coast, and covering from 2490 to 3000 sq. miles. These islands are about ten in number, only one of which (Isabella or Albemarie) is inhabited by some two hundred people.

The eastern half of Ecuador is low, wooded, and traversed by many rivers emptying into the Marañon or Upper Amazon; the western is very mountainous, the high Andes chain dividing the two sections. The mountain chain runs nearly due south from the southern boundary of Colombia to the Peruvian frontier. It has a number of high peaks, all of volcanic origin, among them Chimborazo (20, 500 ft.) and many volcanoes. Of the latter, Cotopaxi (19,613 ft.), Tunguragua (16,690 ft.) and Sangai (17,454 ft.) are still active; Antisana (19,335 ft.); Pichincha (15,918 ft.), etc. have been extinct for a century or more, while Altar, Cotocachi, etc., show traces only of activity in ages long past.

The Ecuadorian table-land and higher mountain valleys are temperate, though the temperature is low in the greater altitudes. The year is divided into the dry and the wet season. Under the Equator, however, there is little difference between the seasons. The coast valleys and shores are very hot, and the climate generally unhealthful.

Ecuador has but one navigable river, the Guayas, which empties into the Gulf of Guayaquil. The other streams of Western Ecuador are of little importance. The flora is luxuriant except in high altitudes. Both lower slopes of the Andes are densely wooded. On the coast there is an arid zone of limited extent; the larger portion, however, is very fertile as far as the Peruvian boundary at Tumbez. The inland forests in the south are rich in Chicona bark, and extend easterly to a height of nearly 10,000 feet. Then follows a sub-Andean zone for the next 3500 feet, in which cereals thrive in an average temperature of from 53° to 59° Fahr. This is followed by what are called the páramos, cold and stormy wastes, treeless and exposed to daily snows, which reach an altitude of 15,000 feet above sea level, and where the tough puna-grass flourishes. On the eastern slope of the Andes dense forests are found again and the cinnamon tree. Animal life is tropical and found in proportion to the vegetation.

As far as known, Ecuador is fairly rich in minerals. It is the only South American state, with the exception of Colombia, where emeralds have been found in any quantity (near the coast at Manta and Esmeraldas); their location, however, is uncertain.

The population is estimated at 1,272,000, of whom about 20,000 are supposed to be Indians. Exact statistics, however, do not exist. Of the 400,000, one-half is allowed to the wild forest-tribes of the eastern section and the other half to the remnants of the diverse sedentary tribes which formerly occupied the table-land and coast. The whole country is divided into fifteen provinces besides the Eastern territory and the Galapagos Islands.

HISTORY

Of the pre-Columbian conditions and languages of the Indians of Ecuador little is known. The coast tribes have almost disappeared, and those of the higher regions have adopted Spanish customs. That they differed from the Peruvian Quicha seems likely. The best known were the Cañaris, the Carangas, and the Puruaes or Puruays; a tribe known as the Scyri is mentioned in the neighbourhood of Quito. They were all sedentary; knew how to work gold, silver, copper, and possibly bronze; and practiced the fetishism common to primitive Americans. The coast tribe built their houses of wood and cane while those of the interior used stone. They were skillful navigators, some of their vessels being estimated at thirty tons, and propelled by oars and cotton sails.

The Spaniards, led by Francisco Pizarro, first saw the coast of Ecuador in 1525. From Tacamez, or Atacames, where they touched, Pizarro dispatched Ruiz, his pilot, to the south. In the account of Pizarro we have the earliest description of the Ecuadorian coast and people. He sailed south beyond the present limits of Peru, verifying his pilot's reports, and in 1528 returned to Spain to prepare for the conquest of Peru. He returned in 1531, landed at Coaque, and, marching south along the shore, established himself, despite the hostility of the natives, on the island of Puná. The permanent Spanish occupation of Ecuador, however, began in 1534, from Piura to Peru under Sebastian de Belalcazar. He had a tedious campaign to Quito, in which he was assisted by Cañaris. In 1534, three towns were established; San Francisco de Quito (15 August) at Riobamba, thirteen days later transferred to its present site, Chimbo; and Guayaquil, also originally founded at a place distinct from the one it now occupies. Meanwhile Pedro de Alvarado had landed on the coast with a considerable force from Guatemala. Reaching the central plateau, he was confronted by Belalcazar and Diego de Almagro the elder. An amicable agreement was reached, and Gonzalo Pizarro pushed into the cinnamon country, but made little headway and had to turn back. His lieutenant, Orellana, however, floated down the Amazon, and landed on the Isle of Trinidad, whence he carries to Spain the first information about southeastern Ecuador.

The second epoch of civil wars in Peru, the uprising of Gonzalo Pizarro against the viceroy Nuñez de la Vela, came to an end with the defeat and death of the viceroy near Quito, 16 Jan., 1546. Quito became the headquarters of the Crown's representative, and with this as a basis, the independence movement was put down. During the colonial period the Church founded institutions of learning such as the University of Quito and established a printing press at the same place in 1760. Political disturbances were few, but during the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries volcanic and seismic phenomena were frequent and often disastrous. An attempt was made in 1809 to overthrow the Spanish power, and Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela, together with the rest of Spanish South America, then engaged in efforts toward independence. In 1820 Guayaquil succeeded in throwing off Spanish control, and the battle of Pichincha (22 May, 1822) finally put an end to the domination of the mother country. Ecuador, with Colombia and Venezuela, next formed an independent confederacy until 1830, when the union was dissolved and the first Ecuadorian congress met. Since then Ecuador has been toward by internal dissensions and foreign complications, chiefly with Colombia. The opposing political parties are the Conservatives, or Clericals, and the Liberals. Since 1893 the latter have been in power and have to a great extent adopted a policy of secularization in church matters. From 1833 to 1908 Ecuador has had nineteen presidents.

GOVERNMENT, EDUCATION, ETC.

Ecuador is a constitutional republic. From 1830 to 1883 it had no less than ten constitutions; the last was adopted in 1897. The executive head is the president, elected with the vice-president directly by the people for a term of four years. The senators (30) and the deputies (41) are also elected by direct vote, the former for four, the latter for two years. Congress meets biennially at Quito, the capital, on 10 August, and is in session for sixty days. The principal cities are: Quito (80,000); Guayaquil (51,000); Cuenca (30,000); Riobamba (18,000), and five of ten thousand or more inhabitants. Guayaquil is the chief seaport. In 1904 Ecuador had 168 miles of railroad and 2565 miles of telegraph, both of which have since been added to. The monetary unit is the sucre, about equal to the peso of other Spanish-American countries, but subject to fluctuation in value. The chief exports are cacao, vegetable ivory, india-rubber, and straw hats.

Educational statistics are scanty. There is a university at Quito with thirty-two professors and two hundred and sixteen students (1905). Institutions of higher education are found at Guayaquil and Cuenca. The number of secondary schools is 35; primary schools 1088 with 1498 teachers and 68,380 pupils; and 9 high schools and colleges.

RELIGION

Soon after the discovery of the country missionaries began their labour in Ecuador and in 1545 the Bishopric of Quito was erected. Work among the different Indian tribes on the tributaries of the Amazon was difficult, and the Dominican missions were destroyed in 1599 by the savage Jivaros. Later, however, the Dominicans re-established themselves and were assisted by the Jesuits who had been in Quito since 1596. By the close of the seventeenth century Ecuador was well-evangelized, but after the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767, who on the Napo alone had thirty-three missions with 100,000 inhabitants, the Dominicans were unable to keep up the work and the natives fell back into paganism. The revolution destroyed all traces of two hundred years of untiring labour. Since 1848 Ecuador has formed an ecclesiastical province. The population is Catholic except for a small number of foreigners and a few pagan Indians in the East.

Up to 1861 the government was in the hands of the Liberal and largely anti-Catholic party. When Garcia Moreno was elected president (1861-65 and 1869-75), however, he reorganized civil and religious affairs. Under him a Concordat (20 November, 1863) was concluded with Rome, new dioceses were erected, schools and missions given to the Jesuits (who had been recalled), and others, and in 1864, at the time of the spolation of the Holy See, ten percent of the state's income was guaranteed to the pope. Moreno was murdered 6 Aug., 1875, and his death not only put an end to the concordat, but under the new regime which succeeded him a series of persecutions occurred. In 1885, when Bishop Schumacher took charge, nearly all the native clergy were suspended and replaced by Europeans and practically a new hierarchy established. The religious and moral education of the people was likewise in bad condition. The revolution of Alfaro in 1895 was a severe blow to the Church. The orders, among them the Capuchins, Salesians, Missionaries of Steyl, and the various sisterhoods, were all banished and Bishop Schumacher obliged to flee.

The State religion is the Catholic, but other creeds are not interfered with. Since tithes were abolished the State has provided for the maintenance of Catholic worship; it also supports religious educational institutions, such as the three seminaries at Quito and six elsewhere, one in each of the six dioceses. Civil marriage was recognized in 1902, and two years later the Church and its property were placed under State control. At the same time it was enacted that no new or foreign religious order would be permitted in the country. Suffragan to Quito, which became an archbishopric in 1848, are: Cuenca (1786), Guayaquil (1837), Ibarra (1862), Loja (1866), Puerto Viejo, or Porto Viejo (1871), Riobamba (1863). There are also four vicariates Apostolic subject to the Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs: Canelos and Macas, Mendez and Gualaquizza, Napo, Zamora.

The first known mention of the Ecuadorian coast is made by JUAN de SAMANO, Relación de los primeros descubrimientos de Francisco Pizarro y Diego de Almagro (1525-26) in Documentos para la Historia de España, V.
Accounts of eyewitnesses on the conquest: Francisco de Zerez, Verdadera relación della Conquista de la Perú y provincia del Cuzco llamada la nueva Castilla (ed. 1534; Salamanca, 1547; and translations); La Conquista de la Perú llamada la nueva Castilla (Seville, 1534); PEDRO PIZZARO, Relación del descub. y conquista del Perú (c. 1571) in Doc. para la Hist. de España, V.
Later sources are: CIEZA, Primera Parte de la Crónica del Perú; AUGUSTIN DE ZARATE, Hist. del Descub. y Con. del Perú (Antwerp, 1555); SANTA CLARA, Hist de las Guerras civiles del Perú (Madrid, 1904); CIEZA, La Guerra de Quito in Doc. para la Hist. de la España; GACILASSO DE LA VEGA, Comentarios reales de los Incas (Cordova, 1617); Narratives of the Rites and Laws of the Incas. ed. MARKHAM, (Hackluyt Soc., London, 1873), especially the first part, LOPEZ DE VELASCO, Geogr. &ca. de Indias (Madrid, 1892). Important documents are found in Colección de Doc. de Indias and in Relaciones geog. de Indias (Madrid), I, III. Cf. Gomara, Herrera, and, for beginning of Conquest, PETER MARTYR. -- See also: JUAN DE VELASCO, Hist del Reyno de Quito (Quito, 1841-42); ULLOA AND JORGE JUAN, Relación hist. del viage á la América Meridional etc. (Madrid, 1748); Resumen hist. del or'gen sucesión de los Incas etc. (Caracas, 1830); LA CONDAMINE, Journal du Voyage fait par ordre du roi à l'Equateur (Paris, 1751); Idem, Hist. des pyramides de Quito (Paris, 1751); Humboldt, Relación hist. (Paris, 1816-31); Vues des Cordilléres etc. (Paris, 1816); BENEDETTI, Hist. de Colombia (Lima, 1887); GONZALEZ SUÁREZ, Hist. general de la Repúb. del Ecuador (Quito, 1890); WOLF, Geog. y geolog'a del Ecuador (Leipzig, 1892); STÜBEL, Skizzen aus Ecuador (Berlin, 1886); Idem, Die Vulkanberge von Ecuador (Berlin, 1898); REISS and STÜBEL, Reisen in Süd-Amerika (Berlin, 1890); KOHLBERG, Nach Ecuador (Freiburg im Br., 1897); HASSAUREK, Four Years Among Spanish Americans (New York, 1876); WYNPER, Travels Among the Great Andes of Ecuador (London, 1892); see also publications of the Bureau of American Republics (Washington, D. C.) and Dicc. Hisp-Amer. For history of printing in Ecuador, see TORIBIO MEDINA, La Imprenta en Quito (Santiago, 1904).

AD. F. BANDELIER

Edda

A title applied to two different collections of old Norse literature, the poetical or "Elder Edda" and the prose or "Younger Edda". Properly speaking the title belongs only to the latter work, having been given to the former through a misnomer.

I. "The Younger Edda", the work of the Icelandic historian and statesman Snorri Sturluson (1178-1241), is a treatise on poetics for the guidance of the skalds or Icelandic poets. The title "Edda" is given to this work in the most important manuscript which we possess of it, the "Upsala Codex", dating from about 1300. The meaning of the word Edda is not certain. The older explanation of "great-grandmother" is now generally discarded, the most commonly accepted rendering being "poetics" (from óthr, "spirit", "reason"). Some scholars derive the word from Oddi, the name of a place in southern Iceland, where Snorri received his earliest training. The work itself was intended to supply to the skald all the necessary information concerning mythology, poetic diction, and versification. Besides a formalí (preface) of later origin it contains three parts. (1) "Gylfaginning" (Gylfi's Deception), an abstract of old Scandinavian mythology in the form of a dialogue between King Gylfi and three gods. Appended to this are the "Bragaroedhur" (Bragi's Sayings), stories about Odhin and Thor, related by Bragi, the god of poetry, to the sea-god Aegir. (2) "Skaldskaparmál" (Diction of Poetry) is a collection of poetic paraphrases (kenningar) and synonyms (ókend heti), interspersed with mythological and legendary stories. (3) "Háttatal", a panegyric on the Norwegian King Hákon Hákonarson and Jarl Skúli, containing one hundred and two strophes, each of which is composed in a different metre. This is followed by a prose commentary written, however, after Snorri's death by an unknown author. The work was unfinished when Snorri died and was subsequently revised and amplified by other writers. The best edition of the Snorra Edda is that published in three volumes by the Arna-Magnaean Society (Copenhagen, 1848-1887). Selections were edited by E. Wilken (Paderborn, 1877); glossary to this edition, Paderborn, 1883). Parts were translated into German by Gering (Leipzig, 1892), into English by Dasent (1842), by Blackwell in Mallet's "Northern Antiquities" (London, 1770), and R. B. Anderson (Chicago, 1880).

II. "The Elder Edda", a collection of mythological and heroic songs in the ancient Icelandic language. Altogether there are thirty-three such songs, twenty -nine of which are contained in the famous "Codex Regius", the most important of the Eddic manuscripts. This codex was found in Iceland in 1643 by Bishop Brynjólf Sveinsson. It had no title, and since it contained poems, portions of which are cited in the Snorra Edda, the bishop concluded that this was Snorri's source and so he called the collection "Edda". He furthermore assumed that the priest Saemund (1056-1133), whose reputation for learning had become proverbial, was the author, or at least the collector of these songs, and he therefore wrote on a copy which he caused to be made the title "Edda Saemundi multiscii" (Edda of Saemund the wise), and the title "Edda" has since then remained in general use to designate the kind of poems found in the "Codex Regius". Such poems differ both in content and form from the so-called skaldic poems. There is no doubt that these songs were collected and written down in Iceland from oral tradition; but nothing certain is known concerning their age, original home, and authorship. All this has to be inferred from internal evidence, and hence opinions differ widely. It is agreed, however, that these poems are not common Scandinavian, but purely Norwegian; they were composed either in Norway or in Norwegian settlements like Iceland and Greenland. As to their age, it is conceded that none dates earlier than the middle of the ninth, and that some were written as late as the thirteenth century. The subject-matter of the songs is taken either from mythology or heroic saga. Among the mythological poems the most famous is the "Vóluspá"(the prophecy of the volva or sibyl), the most important source for our knowledge of Norse cosmogony. Important also in this respect are the "Vafthrúdhnismál" and "Grímnismál", where Odhin's superior wisdom is set forth.

Of the songs dealing with Thor the best known is the "Thrymskvdha" (The song of Thrym), relating Thor's quest of his hammer. The sententious wisdom of the Northmen is represented by the "Hávamál" (sayings of the High One), i.e., Odhin). Among the heroic poems the chief interest attaches to the lays of Sigurd and the Niflungs. Unfortunately this cycle of poems is incomplete, owing to a great gap of about eight leaves in the "Codex Regius"; but an idea of the contents of the lost poems may be gained from the prose version of the "Volsungasaga", the author of which still had before him the complete collection. The first complete edition of the "Elder Edda", with Latin translation, was issued by the Arna-Magnaean Society (Copenhagen, 1787-1828). The first critical edition, on which all subsequent ones were based, was given by Sophus Bugge (Christiana, 1867). A lithographic facsimile edition of the "Codex Regius", with a diplomatic text, was given by Wimmer and Jónsson (Copenhagen, 1891). Other editions are those of Sijmons and Gerine (Halle, Vol.I, text, 1888-1901; Vol II, glossary, 1903); F. Jónsson (Halle, 1888-190), 2 vols.); Hildebrand-Gering (Paderborn, 1904); F. Detter and R. Heinzel (Leipzig, 1903, 2 vols.). the poems of this kind not found in the "Codex Regius" were edited by Heusler and Ranisch, "Eddica Minora" (Dortmund, 1903). The best translation into German is the metrical version of Hugo Gering (Leipzig, 1892). The first English version (of the mythological songs only) was made by A.S. Cottle (Bristol, 1797). A complete English version is that of Benj. Thorpe (London, 1865-66). The songs are also translated in Vigfusson and Powell's "Corpus poeticum boreale" (Oxford, 1883), and some songs are also rendered in Magnusson and Morris's "Translation of the Volsungasaga" (London, 1870). A new translation by W. H. Carpenter is in preparation (1908).

For the "Snorra Edda" consult JONNSSON, "Den Oldnorske og Oldislandske Litteratura Historie" (Copenhagen, 1894-1902), II, 77-90, 672 sq.; MOGK., "Geschicte der Norwegisch-islandischen Literatur" in PAUL"S "Grundriss der Germanischen Philologie" (Strasburg, 1904), pp. 698-703; 906-910.

For the "Elder Edda" consult JONSSON, op.cit., I 9-321; MOGK, op.cit., 569-656; GOLTHER, "Nordische Litteraturgeschicte" (Leipzig, 1905), 10-57. See also the introduction to the edition of SIJMONS-GERING for full bibliographical and critical material.

ARTHUR F.J. REMY

Edelinck

The family name of four engravers.

Gerard Edelinck

Born in Antwerp c. 1640; died in Paris, 2 April, 1707. Galle instructed him in the rudiments of his art, and from him, in Antwerp, the youth imbibed that vigour and energy characterizing Rubens' school of engravers, which was later to transform the art in France and impart to it Northern freshness and simplicity. In 1665 Gerard came to Paris, studied with de Poilly, quickly surpassed him, and almost immediately reached the height of his powers, which remained undiminished until his death. Le Brun and Colbert called Louis XIV's attention to Edelinck, who received commissions, a pension, the title of engraver to the king, apartments in the Gobelins, and the position of professor in the Gobelins Academy from the monarch whose features he depicted in fourteen engravings. In 1675 he was naturalized; in 1677 he became a Royal Academician; and soon thereafter the order of Chevalier of Saint-Michel was conferred upon him.

Edelinck was one of the greatest masters of pure engraving. He never used etching or dry-point on his plates, and of the four hundred that he produced there is not one that is poor or second-rate. Edelinck's work was epoch-making: he revolutionized engraving, abandoning lines that crossed to form squares for lozenge forms. Further, he massed his lines and changed their direction, thus avoiding the monotony that had marked all previous work in France. Edelinck had all the merits of his predecessors and, besides, rendered texture, colour, and light and shade as they never before had been rendered. His strokes were clear and bold, and the results beautifully finished, harmonious, and silvery. His proofs were the first to possess the quality called technically by engravers "colour". Sometimes they were slightly "metallic". Reproductions on steel by Edelinck frequently suggested more colour and quality in the originals than the latter possessed. He worked with marvellous facility and concealed his consumate science under an unobtrusive technic. While he did not confine his burin to portraits, it was these which gave him his great fame, for he so depicted all the notable men of his time, in the Church and the Court, and in literature and art, that we, to-day, gain an insight into their very character. The greater part of his work was reproductive, but he sometimes engraved from his own drawings, for he was a superb draughtsman. Edelinck was chosen to engrave Raphael's "Holy Family", Le Brun's "Magdalen", and "Alexander Visiting the Family of Darius", the first-named bringing him instant fame. Only two impressions before letters of the "Holy Family" exist. Edelinck's life was one of piety, contentment, and tireless labour; it was made up of teaching engraving to his son and his two brothers and working on his own plates. Death found him engraving the "Alexander Entering the Tent of Darius", a superb plate finished by Pierre Drevet. To his family he left a fortune. Plates wholly his own were signed "Gerard Edelinck", or "Edelinck eques"; but when his compatriot Pitau or Gaspard Edelinck assisted him the signature was "Edelinck". Among his pupils were Gaspard, Jean, and Nicolas Edelinck, Lombard, and Trouvain. His principal works are: "Portrait of Louis XIV", after Le Brun; "Portrait of Rigaud", after Rigaud; "Portrait of Mme. Hélyot with a Crucifix", after Galliot; "Portrait of Philippe de Champaigne", which the artist thought his best work, after Champaigne; "Combat of the Four Horsemen", after da Vinci.

Nicolas Edelinck

Son of the preceding, b. in Paris in 1680; d. there in 1730. He studied under his father, Gerard, and to perfect himself subsequently went to Italy. In Venice he produced many plates in the style of his father, whom, however, he never equalled in vigour or quality. He engraved several plates for the Crozat collection. His masterpiece is a "Virgin and Infant" after Correggio.

His works include a "Portrait of his Father", after Tortebat; "Portrait of Cardinal Giulio de' Medici", after Raphael; "Portrait of John Dryden", after Kneller.

Jean Edelinck

Born in Antwerp, c. 1643; died in Paris, 1680. He was a younger brother and pupil of Gerard, with whom he worked and whose style he imitated. Plates wholly his own are much inferior to those of his celebrated brother, though they have considerable merit. "The Deluge", after A. Veronese, is his masterpiece. He made many engravings of the statues in the gardens of Versailles.

Gaspard François Edelinck

Born in Antwerp, 1652; died in Paris, 1722. Gaspard, the youngest brother of Gerard, who was his teacher and co-worker, was inferior in talent to the other members of the Edelinck family, and did not long follow the career of engraver. Because he used a signature similar to that of Gerard and because his master often helped him with his plates, much of his work is difficult to distinguish from Gerard's.

LIPPMAN, Engraving and Etching (New York, 1906); DUMESNIL, Le peintre graveur français (Paris, 1835-50), VII, 169-336; DUPLESSIS, Hist. de la Gravure (Paris, 1880); Biographie générale des Belges; SEUBERT, Allgemeines Künstler-Lexikon (3 vols., Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1882).

LEIGH HUNT

Edesius and Frumentius

Tyrian Greeks of the fourth century, probably brothers, who introduced Christianity into Abyssinia; the latter a saint and first Bishop of Axum, styled the Apostle of Abyssinia, d. about 383. When still mere boys they accompanied their uncle Metropius on a voyage to Abyssinia. When their ship stopped at one of the harbours of the Red Sea, people of the neighbourhood massacred the whole crew, with the exception of Edesius and Frumentius, who were taken as slaves to the King of Axum. This occurred about 316. The two boys soon gained the favour of the king, who raised them to positions of trust and shortly before his death gave them their liberty. The widowed queen, however, prevailed upon them to remain at the court and assist her in the education of the young prince Erazanes and in the administration of the kingdom during the prince's minority. They remained and (especially Frumentius) used their influence to spread Christianity. First they encouraged the Christian merchants, who were temporarily in the country, to practise their faith openly by meeting at places of public worship; later they also converted some of the natives. When the prince came of age Edesius returned to his friends and relatives at Tyre and was ordained priest, but did not return to Abyssinia. Frumentius, on the other hand, who was eager for the conversion of Abyssinia, accompanied Edesius as far as Alexandria, where he requested St. Athanasius to send a bishop and some priests to Abyssinia. St. Athanasius considered Frumentius himnself the most suitable person for bishop and consecrated him in 328, according to others between 340-46. Frumentius returned to Abyssinia, erected his episcopal see at Axum, baptized King Aeizanas, who had meanwhile secceeded to the throne, built many churches, and spread the Christian Faith throughout Abyssinia. The people called him Abuna (Our Father) or Abba Salama (Father of Peace), titles still given to the head of the Abyssinian Church. In 365 Emperor Constantius addressed a letter to King Aeizanas and his brother Saizanas in which he vainly requested them to substitute the Arian bishop Theophilus for Frumentius (Athanasius, "Apol. ad Constantium" in P.G., XXV, 631). The Latins celebrate the feast of Frumentius on 27 October, the Greeks on 30 November, and the Copts on 18 December. Abyssinian tradition credits him with the first Ethiopian translation of the New Testament.

      Rufinus, Historia Ecclesiastica, lib. I, cap. ix, in P.L., XXI, 478-80; Acta SS. Oct., XII, 257-70; Duchesne, Les missiones chrétienne au Sud de l'empire romain in Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire (Rome, 1896), XVI, 79-122; Thebaud, The Church and the Gentile World (New York, 1878), I, 231-40; Butler, Lives of the Saints, 27 Oct.; Baring- Gould, Lives of the Saints (London, 1872), 27 Oct.

Michael Ott

Edessa

A titular archiepiscopal see in that part of Mesopotamia formerly known as Osrhoene.

The name under which Edessa figures in cuneiform inscriptions is unknown; the native name was Osroe, after some local satrap, this being the Armenian form for Chosroes; it became in Syriac Ourhoï, in Armenian Ourhaï in Arabic Er Roha, commonly Orfa or Urfa, its present name. Seleucus Nicator, when he rebuilt the town, 303 b.c., called it Edessa, in memory of the ancient capital of Macedonia of similar name (now Vodena). Under Antiochus IV (175-164 b.c.) the town was called Antiochia by colonists from Antioch who had settled there.

On the foundation of the Kingdom of Osrhoene, Edessa became the capital under the Abgar dynasty. This kingdom was established by Nabatæan or Arabic tribes form North Arabia, and lasted nearly four centuries (132 b.c. to a.d. 244), under thirty-four kings. It was at first more or less under the protectorate of the Parthians, then of the Romans; the latter even occupied Edessa from 115 to 118 under Trajan, and from 216 to 244, when the kingdom was definitely suppressed to form a Roman province. The literary language of the tribes which had founded this kingdom, was Aramaic, whence came the Syriac.

The exact date of the introduction of Christianity into Edessa is not known. It is certain, however, that the Christian community was at first made up from the Jewish population of the city. According to an ancient legend, King Abgar V, Ushana, was converted by Addai, who was one of the seventy-two disciples. (For a full account see Abgar.) In fact, however, the first King of Edessa to embrace the Christian Faith was Abgar IX (c. 206). Under him Christianity became the official religion of the kingdom. As for Addai, he was neither one of the seventy-two disciples as the legend asserts, nor was he the Apostle Thaddeus, as Eusebius says (Hist. Eccl., IV, xiii), but a missionary from Palestine who evangelized Mesopotamia about the middle of the second century, and became the first bishop of Edessa. (See Doctrine of Addai.) He was succeeded by Aggai, then by Palout (Palut) who was ordained about 200 by Seraphion of Antioch. Thenceforth the Church of Edessa, until then under that of Jerusalem, was subject to the metropolitan of Syria. The aforesaid relations with Jerusalem and Antioch caused in important Syriac literary movement at Edessa of which the city long remained the centre. Thence came to us in the second century the famous Peshitto, or Syriac translation of the Old Testament; also Tatian's Diatessaron, which was compiled about 172 and in common use until St. Rabbula (Rabulas), Bishop of Edessa (412-35), forbade its use. Among the illustrious disciples of the School of Edessa special mention is due to Bardesanes (154-222), a schoolfellow of Abgar IX, the originator of Christian religious poetry, whose teaching was continued by his son Harmonius and his disciples. (See Bardesanes and B ARDESANITES.)

A Christian council was held at Edessa as early as 197 (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., V, xxiii). In 201 the city was devastated by a great flood, and the Christian church was destroyed ("Chronicon Edessenum", ad. an. 201). In 232 the relics of the Apostle St. Thomas were brought from India, on which occasion his Syriac Acts were written. Under Roman domination many martyrs suffered at Edessa: Sts. Scharbîl and Barsamya, under Decius; Sts. Gûrja, Schâmôna, Habib, and others under Diocletian. In the meanwhile Christian priests from Edessa had evangelized Eastern Mesopotamia and Persia, and established the first Churches in the kingdom of the Sassanides. Atillâtiâ, Bishop of Edessa, assisted at the Council of Nicæa (325). The "Peregrinatio Silviæ" (or Etheriæ) (ed. Gamurrini, Rome, 1887, 62 sqq.) gives an account of the many sanctuaries at Edessa about 388.

When Nisibis was ceded to the Persians in 363, St. Ephrem left his native town for Edessa, where he founded the celebrated School of the Persians. This school, largely attended by the Christian youth of Persia, and closely watched by St. Rabbula, the friend of St. Cyril of Alexandria, on account of its Nestorian tendencies, reached its highest development under Bishop Ibas, famous through the controversy of the Three Chapters, was temporarily closed in 457, and finally in 489, by command of Emperor Zeno and Bishop Cyrus, when the teachers and students of the School of Edessa repaired to Nisibis and became the founders and chief writers of the Nestorian Church in Persia (Labourt, Le christianisme dans l'empire perse, Paris, 1904, 130-141). Monophysitism prospered at Edessa, even after the Arab conquest.

Suffice it to mention here among the later celebrities of Edessa Jacob Baradeus, the real chief of the Syrian Monophysites known after him as Jacobites; Stephen Bar Sudaïli, monk and pantheist, to whom was owing, in Palestine, the last crisis of Origenism in the sixth century; Jacob, Bishop of Edessa, a fertile writer (d. 708); Theophilus the Maronite, an astronomer, who translated into Syriac verse Homer's Iliad and Odyssey; the anonymous author of the "Chronicon Edessenum" (Chronicle of Edessa), compiled in 540; the writer of the story of "The Man of God", in the fifth century, which gave rise to the legend of St. Alexius. The oldest known dated Syriac manuscripts (a.d. 411 and 462), containing Greek patristic texts, come from Edessa.

Rebuilt by Emperor Justin, and called after him Justinopolis (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., IV, viii, Edessa was taken in 609 by the Persians, soon retaken by Heraclius, but captured again by the Arabs in 640. Under Byzantine rule, as metropolis of Osrhoene, it had eleven suffragan sees (Echos d'Orient, 1907, 145). Lequien (Oriens christ., II, 953 sqq.) mentions thirty-five Bishops of Edessa; yet his list is incomplete. The Greek hierarchy seems to have disappeared after the eleventh century. Of its Jacobite bishops twenty-nine are mentioned by Lequien (II, 1429 sqq.), many others in the "Revue de l'Orient chrétien" (VI, 195), some in "Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft" (1899), 261 sqq. Moreover, Nestorian bishops are said to have resided at Edessa as early as the sixth century. The Byzantines often tried to retake Edessa, especially under Romanus Lacapenus, who obtained from the inhabitants the "Holy Mandylion", or ancient portrait of Christ, and solemnly transferred it to Constantinople, 16 August, 944 (Rambaud, Constantin Porphyrogénète, Paris, 1870, 105 sqq.). For an account of this venerable and famous image, which was certainly at Edessa in 544, and of which there is an ancient copy in the Vatican Library, brought to the West by the Venetians in 1207, see Weisliebersdorf, "Christus und Apostelbilder" (Freiburg, 1902), and Dobschütz, "Christusbilder" (Leipzig, 1899). In 1031 Edessa was given up to the Greeks by its Arab governor. It was retaken by the Arabs, and then successivelly held by the Greeks, the Seljuk Turks (1087), the Crusaders (1099), who established there the "county" of Edessa and kept the city till 1144, when it was again captured by the Turk Zengui, and most of its inhabitants were slaughtered together with the Latin archbishop. These events are known to us chiefly through the Armenian historian Matthew, who had been born at Edessa. Since the twelfth century, the city has successively belonged to the Sultans of Aleppo, the Mongols, the Mamelukes, and finally (since 1517) to the Osmanlis.

Orfa is to-day the chief town of a sanjak in the vilayet of Aleppo, and has a trade in cotton stuffs, leather, and jewellery. Ruins of its walls and of an Arab castle are yet visible. One of its curiosities is the mosque of Abraham, this patriarch according to a Mussulman legend having been slain at Orfa. The population is about 55,000, of whom 15,000 are Christians (only 800 Catholics). There are 3 Catholic parishes, Syrian, Armenian, and Latin; the Latin parish is conducted by Capuchins, who have also a school. Franciscan nuns conduct a school for girls. This mission depends on the Apostolic mission of Mardin. There are also at Orfa a Jacobite and a Gregorian Armenian bishop.

Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents Relative to the Earliest Establishment of Christianity in Edessa (London, 1863); Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity (London, 1904); Bayer, Historia Osrhoena et Edessena ex nummis illustrata (St. Petersburg, 1794); Gutschmid, Untermachungen über die Geschichte des Königsreich Osrhoene (St. Petersburg, 1887); Tillemont, Les origines de l'Eglise d'Edesse (Paris, 1888); Duval, La littérature syriaque (Paris, 1899), passim; Idem, Histoire politique, religeuse et littéraire d'Edesse jusqu'à la première croisade (Paris, 1891); Lavigerie, Essai historique sur l'école chrétienne d'Edesse (Lyons, 1850); Ducange, Les familles d'outre-mer (Paris, 1869), 294-314; Tenier, La ville et les monuments d'Edesse in Revue orientale-américaine (1839), 326-54; Cuinet, La Turquie d'Asie (Paris, 1892), II, 257-263.

S. VailhÉ

Henry Essex Edgeworth

Better known as L' ABBÉ Edgeworth de Firmont

Confessor of Louis XVI, and vicar-general of the Diocese of Paris at the height of the French Revolution, b. at Edgeworthstown, County Longford, Ireland, in 1745; d. 22 May, 1807, at Mittau, Russia. His father, the Rev. Robert Edgeworth, Protestant rector of Edgeworthstown, or Mostrim, was a first cousin to Richard Lowell Edgeworth, the father of Maria Edgeworth, the novelist; and his mother was a granddaughter of the Protestant Archbishop Ussher. The Rev. Robert Edgeworth owned an estate at Firmount, or Fairy-mount, a few miles distant from Edgeworthstown, where the elder branch of the Edgeworth family resided. The Edgeworths were of English descent, and went to Ireland in the reign of Elizabeth. The title, "Edgeworth de Firmont", by which the abbé was universally known in France, was derived from Firmount, the ancestral patrimony of his family. The vicarage house at Edgeworthstown where he passed his childhood is believed to be the same in which Oliver Goldsmith went to school to the Rev. Patrick Hughes. The Rev. Robert Edgeworth through conscientious motives resigned his living, embraced the Catholic religion, and, finding life at home intolerable under the penal laws, with his family (all of whom became Catholics) removed to Toulouse in France, where Henry Essex, then four years of age, received his early training for the ecclesiastical state. Subsequently he went to the seminary of Trente-Trois, Paris, at the suggestion of Bishop Moylan of Cork (at one time a curé in Paris). After a course of theology at the Sorbonne, Henry Essex Edgeworth was ordained priest and the capital of France became the theatre of his apostolic labours. The Irish bishops offered him a mitre in Ireland, an honour which he declined with his usual humility. On the removal of her confessor, Madame Elisabeth, sister of the ill-fated Louis XVI, requested the superior of Les Missions Etrangeres, where the abbé resided, to recommend her another and he unhesitatingly selected the Abbé Edgeworth. The Archbishop of Paris approved of the choice, and introduced him at court. Thus he became known to the royal family as a devoted friend. In their fallen fortunes he stood by them at the risk of his life, followed the survivors after the Revolution into exile, and died in their service.

When the Archbishop of Paris was obliged to fly in 1792 in order to save his life, he vested the Abbé Edgeworth with all his powers, making him his grand vicaire, and committed the great diocese to his care. In answer to the urgent entreaties of his friends to seek safety in Ireland or England, at this time, the abbé replied: "Almighty God has baffled my measures, and ties me to this land of horrors by chains I have not the liberty to shake off. The case is this: the wretched master [the king] charges me not to quit this country, as I am the priest whom he intends to prepare him for death. And should the iniquity of the nation commit this last act of cruelty, I must also prepare myself for death, as I am convinced the popular rage will not allow me to survive an hour after the tragic scene; but I am resigned. Could my life save him I would willingly lay it down, and I should not die in vain" (Letter to Mr. Maffey, priest in London).

At last, on the 20th of January, 1793, he was summoned by the Executive Council to proceed to the Temple prison at the desire of "Louis Capet", who was condemned to die on the following day. The abbé, having remained in the Temple all night, said Mass in the king's apartment on the morning of the execution, sat beside him in the carriage on the way to the scaffold, and, when the axe of the guillotine was about to fall, consoled his beloved master with the noble words: "Son of St. Louis, ascend to heaven." In his graphic and authoritative account of the last moments of Louis XVI (the original of which in French is preserved in the British Museum) the abbé is silent about this fine apostrophe, which everyone has heard of; but, when asked if he made use of the memorable expression, he replied that, having no recollection of anything that happened to himself at that awful moment, he neither affirmed nor denied having used the words. He was allowed to leave the scene of the execution unmolested, and so escaped; but soon after his head was demanded in several clubs, so that he was obliged to quit Paris and take refuge at Bayeux, whence at that time he might easily have escaped to England. Three chief considerations, however, bound him to the land of horrors. He had a great diocese committed to his care; he had promised Madame Elisabeth, then in prison, never to desert her, and he could not abandon his mother and sister, still living in Paris. Dressed as an ordinary citizen, and passing under the name now of Essex, now of Edgeworth, and again of Henry, he eluded capture and the guillotine, until finally in August, 1796, after the death of his mother, and the execution of Madame Elisabeth, he escaped to Portsmouth, and proceeded to London.

Mr. Pitt offered to settle a pension for life on him, but he respectfully declined it. During the three months he spent in London he was lionized by fashionable society. His brother, Ussher, who resided at Firmount, and his relatives at Edgeworthstown, proud of his fame and renown, were most anxious to see him in Ireland; and, in fact, he was on the point of revisiting the land of his birth when he was entrusted with confidential despatches for Louis XVIII, then at Blankenburg. This changed all his plans. At the earnest entreaty of the exiled king he resolved to remain with him as his chaplain, going afterwards with the royal family to Mittau in Russia, where he spent the remainder of his days, revered and honoured by all with whom he came in contact. The Emperor Paul settled a pension of 500 roubles per annum on him. When Napoleon invaded Russia in 1807 it happened that some French soldiers were taken prisoners, and sent to Mittau. A contagious fever broke out among them, and in attending to their spiritual wants Abbé Edgeworth, never of a robust constitution, fell a victim to the plague. The daughter of Louis XVI, despite the manifest danger of contagion, attended night and day at the sick bed of her "beloved and revered invalid, her more than friend, who had left kindred and country for her family", to use her own words. He was interred at Mittau. Louis XVIII wrote his epitaph, a copy of which, together with a letter of condolence, was sent by Louis' orders to Mr. Ussher Edgeworth, the abbé's brother, residing in Ireland.

C. S. Edgeworth, Memoirs of the Abbé Edgeworth; containing the Narrative of tha Last Hours of Louis XVI (London, 1815); Thiers, Histoire de la Révolution française (1827); R. L. Edgeworth, Memoirs (London, 1820); Webb, Compendium of Irish Biography (Dublin, 1878); Gordon, Five Unpublished Letters of l'Abbé Edgeworth de Firmont in The Tablet (London, 28 April, 1900).

Joseph Guinan.

Edinburgh

Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, though not its largest city, derives its name from the time (about a.d. 620) when the fortress of Edwin's burgh was raised on a lofty spur of the Pentland Hills, overlooking the Firth of Forth, and established the Anglian dominion in the northern part of the Northumbrian Kingdom. Edinburgh Castle was a royal residence in the reign of Malcolm Canmore, husband of St. Margaret, who died there in 1093. Round the castle the town grew up, and a little lower down the collegiate church of St. Giles, predecessor of the present church bearing that name, was erected in the twelfth century. St. Margaret's son, King David I, founded the Abbey of Holyrood, at the foot of the castle hill, 1128; but the town of Edinburgh for several centuries did not extend beyond the ridge sloping eastwards from the castle. In the middle of the fifteenth century Edinburgh became the real capital of Scotland, that is, the seat of the Parliament and the Government, as well as the residence of the kings, and the scene of many of the most important provincial councils which regulated the affairs of the Scottish Church. James II was the first king crowned at Edinburgh instead of in the Abbey of Scone, and he and his successors conferred many privileges on the capital, and did all in their power to develop it and increase its prosperity. The buildings of the city gradually spread outside the ancient walls, all along the sloping ridge which extends from the castle at the top to Holyrood at the bottom; and towards the end of the nineteenth century the New Town was built to the northward, beyond the extensive lake (since drained) which stretched under the castle hill.

During the past hundred years Edinburgh has steadily increased in population and wealth, if not so rapidly as other cities which are greater centres of manufactures and commerce. The unrivalled beauty of its situation, and the social and other advantages which it offers as the capital of the country, as well as the remarkable educative facilities afforded by its many splendidly equipped schools and colleges, have always made it exceptionally attractive as a place of residence. Literary taste and culture were long the special characteristic of Edinburgh society, and it still possesses some of the literary charm which won for the city the title of the Modern Athens in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, when Scott, Wilson, Jeffrey, Brougham, and others made it famous by their personality and their genius. Modern facilities of travel and of intercommunication have inevitably given to Edinburgh, as to every centre of population in the kingdom outside London, a certain note or provincialism; but it has not altogether lost the dignity and charm proper to a capital. The population of Edinburgh is now (1908) 317,000, an increase of more than 100,000 in the past thirty years; and its total area is nearly 11,000 acres. It returns four members to Parliament, and is governed by a town council of fifty members, presided over by the lord provost. Printing, brewing, and distilling have long been, and still are, the principal industries of the city. Edinburgh is the seat of the supreme court of Scottish law, which in its external forms as well as in many essential points differs greatly from the law of England. The presidents of the courts are the lord-justice-general and the lord-justice-clerk; and the judges, properly entitled "senators of the college of justice", enjoy the official tiitle of lord. The supreme courts occupy the ancient Scottish Parliament house, a stately seventeenth century building; and under the same roof is the Advocates' Library, one of the most extensive and valuable collections of books and manuscripts in the kingdom.

EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY

Edinburgh University, the only one of the four Scottish universities not founded in Catholic times, was established in 1582 by royal charter granted by James VI, and was speedily enriched by many benefactions from prominent citizens. Its buildings occupy the site of the ancient collegiate church of St. Mary-in-the-Fields, or the Kirk o'Field (well known as the scene of the mysterious murder of Lord Darnley), and have in recent years been greatly extended and embellished. The university comprises the usual faculties of divinity, law, medicine, and arts, and has produced many eminent men. The Edinburgh medical school has a world-wide reputation, and attracts students from all parts of the empire, as well as many foreigners. No religious tests prevent Catholics from enjoying the full benefits of university education in Edinburgh; but the number of Catholics frequenting the schools is remarkably small. The total number of students frequenting the university is between three and four thousand.

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

Edinburgh is naturally much bound up in its ecclesiastical history with the country at large. In the earliest centuries of its existence, belonging as it did to the Kingdom of Northumbria, Edinburgh was included in the Diocese of Lindisfarne, as we find from the list of churches belonging to that see compiled by Simeon of Durham in 854. The early connexion of the city with Lindisfarne is shown by the dedication to St. Cuthbert of its oldest church, founded probably in the ninth century. St. Cuthbert's church was presented to the newly established Abbey of Holyrood by King David; it was the richest church in Edinburgh, and possessed several outlying chapels, such as St. Ninian's, St. Roque's, and St. John Baptist's. When the diocesan system came to be fully established in Scotland, under Malcolm and Margaret and their sons, Edinburgh was included in the metropolitan Diocese of St. Andrews, and continued to be so until the suppression of the ancient hierarchy in the sixteenth century. The archbishop's see, as well as the episcopal residence, was of course in the primatial city of St. Andrews, beyond the Firth of Forth; and there was no building known as a cathedral in Edinburgh prior to 1634, when the new Anglican Diocese of Edinburgh was formed out of the ancient archdeaconry of Lothian, and Forbes became the first occupant of the see. The old collegiate church of St. Giles was at this time, and during the revival of Episcopalianism in Scotland, used as the cathedral of the Protestant bishop. As regards the Catholic Church, Edinburgh was the head-quarters of the vicars Apostolic of the Eastern District of Scotland from the time of the foundation of that vicariate in 1828, when the church now known as St. Mary's Catholic Cathedral had been in existence for some fifteen years. It has no architectural interest, but a spacious chancel was added, and other improvements carried out, in 1891. A cathedral for the Episcopalian body (whose bishop resides in Edinburgh) was erected about 1878, at a cost of over $500,000, from funds left by two charitable ladies. It is a Gothic building of much dignity, and by far the finest ecclesiastical building, either ancient or modern, now existing in Edinburgh. The Presbyterians have some handsome churches, but the grand old church of St. Giles, now in their hands, has been hopelessly vulgarized by the "restorer". A new church built by the Irvingites is adorned within by some fine mural paintings.

The seven Catholic churches which (besides the cathedral) supply the needs of the Catholic population of Edinburgh are of no particular merit architecturally, the most imporinteresting being the latest erected, St. Peter's, which is in the earliest Byzantine style, and forms, with its presbytery, a little group of much originality and charm. The Catholic Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh (the fourth who has held that office in thirty years) resides in Edinburgh, and has his episcopal seat in St. Mary's Cathedral. St. Andrews (to which the title of Edinburgh was added at the restoration of the hierarchy in 1878) possesses a small Catholic church; but the Catholic population of the primatial city is–except for summer visitors–only a handful. In Edinburgh the Catholics are estimated to number about 20,000. In the reign of Queen Anne (1702-14) a list sent in to the privy council of "Popish parents and their children in various districts of Scotland" gives the number of Catholics in Edinburgh as 160, including the Duke and Duchess of Gordon with their family and household, and several other noble families. The majority of the Catholics of Edinburgh to-day are of the poorer classes, and of Irish origin; but the past decade or so has witnessed a considerable number of conversions among the more well-to-do inhabitants of the city. Since the great anti-Catholic tumults of 1779, when the chapels and houses belonging to the insignificant Catholic body were burned by the rioters, the spirit of tolerance has made progress in the Scottish capital as elsewhere in the kingdom. Catholics are generally respected, and may and do rise to high positions of trust in the commercial, legal, and municipal world.

Something remains to be said of the religious houses which have flourished in Edinburgh in ancient and modern times. The principal and wealthiest monastery in former days was the Abbey of Holyrood, founded by David I for Augustinian canons, who were brought from St. Andrews. The Blackfriars or Dominican monastery was founded by Alexander II in 1230, on a site now occupied by a hospital. The Greyfriars or Franciscan church (of the Observant branch of the order) stood in the Grassmarket until it was destroyed by fire in 1845. The Whitefriars of Carmelites did not settle in Edinburgh until 1518. Their house of Greenside, near the Calton Hill, was transformed at the Dissolution into a lepers' hospital. Beyond the Carmelite house, nearer Leith, stood the preceptory of St. Anthony, the only house of that order in Scotland. The collegiate churches in and about Edinburgh included those of St. Giles and St. Mary-in-the-Fields (already mentioned), Trinity Church, Restalrig, Corstorphine, Creighton, and Dalkeith. Trinity church, one of the most exquisite Gothic buildings in Scotland, was destroyed in the nineteenth century by a deplorable act of vandalism, to make room for new railway works. Neither the Benedictine nor Cistercian monks, who had numerous houses in Scotland, were established in Edinburgh. The Cistercian or Bernardine nuns, however, possessed the convent of St. Marie-in-the-wynd (or lane) near a hospital, where the sisters tended the sick. The Dominican nuns had also a convent (called Sciennes or Shenes, from St. Catherine of Siena) in the outskirts of the city. The numerous hospitals in Catholic Edinburgh comprised St. Mary Magdalen's in the Cowgate, founded in 1503 (the chapel remains, and is now used as a medical mission-hall); St. Leonard's, at the foot of Salisbury Crags; St. Mary's, in Leith Wynd, for twelve almsmen (converted into a workhouse by the Edinburgh magistrates in 1619); St. Thomas's, near the water-gate, founded in 1541 by Abbot Crichton of Holyrood for seven almsmen in red gowns; and Ballantyne's Hospital, founded by Robert Ballentyne or Bellenden, Abbot of Holyrood. The two religious orders of men now working in Edinburgh and its seaport of Leith are the Jesuits and the Oblates of Mary Immaculate. The former serve one of the largest churches in the city, and the latter have a house at Leith. There are eight convents of nuns, the oldest being St. Margaret's (Ursuline), founded in 1835, the first since the Reformation. The nuns keep a high-class school and attend several hospitals. St. Catherine's Convent of Mercy has a well-equipped training-college for teachers as well as a ladies' school. The other convents are those of the Sisters of Charity, Little Sisters of the Poor, Sisters of the Sacred Hearts, Poor Clares, Order of Marie Réparatrice, Helpers of the Holy Souls, and Sisters of the Immaculate Conception. The other Catholic institutions of the city include a children's refuge, orphanages for boys and girls, home for working boys, home for destitute children, dispensary, and home for penitents.

      Maitland, Hist. of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1754); Anderson, Hist. Of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1856); Chambers, Traditions of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1825); Wilson, Memorials of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1848); Lees, St. Giles (Edinburgh, 1887); Arnot, Hist. of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1779); Lectures on the Antiquities of Edinburgh in the Guild of St. Joseph (Edinburgh, 1845); Oliphant, Royal Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1890).

D.O. Hunter-Blair

Editions of the Bible

In the present article we understand by editions of the Bible the printed reproductions of its original texts. We are not concerned with copies of the versions of the Bible, whether printed or written; nor do we purpose to consider the manuscript copies of the original text. The written reproductions are described under CODEX ALEXANDRINUS and similar articles. See also BIBLICAL CRITICISM in the latter part of which article will be found an explanation of the critical nomenclature of Bible codices and the symbols by which they are denoted. The translations of the Bible will be treated under the title VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE. Since the original text of the Bible was written in Hebrew or Greek (the original Aramaic portions can for the present purpose be considered as coincident with the Hebrew), our study of its printed reproductions naturally considers first the editions of the Hebrew text, and secondly those of the Greek.

I. EDITIONS OF THE HEBREW TEXT OF THE BIBLE

Roughly speaking, there are three classes of editions of the Hebrew text:

1. The so-called Incunabula (Lat. cunabula, pl., "cradle")
2. The common editions
3. The critical editions.

The reader will see that this division has an historical as well as a logical basis.

1. THE INCUNABULA

Technically speaking, the Incunabula are the editions issued before the year 1500. From our present critical standpoint, they are very defective; but since they represent manuscripts now lost, they are important even for critical purposes. The following publications constitute the main body of the Incunabula:

1. The quarto edition of the Hebrew Psalter with the commentary of Rabbi David Kimchi, printed in 1477, probably at Bologna. Vowels and accents are wanting, except in the first four psalms. The volume is noted for its omissions, abbreviations, and general lack of accuracy.
2. The folio edition of the Pentateuch, with vowels and accents, containing the Targum of Onkelos and the commentary of Rabbi Samuel Jarchi, printed at Bologna, 1482. This publication is much more perfect and correct than the foregoing.
3. The so-called Earlier Prophets, i. e. the Books of Josue, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, printed in 1488 at Soncino, near Cremona, in Italy.
4. The folio edition of the Later Prophets, i. e. Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets, printed soon after the preceding publication, without accents and vowels, but interlined with the text of Kimchi's commentary.
5. The Psalter and the Megilloth, or "Rolls", i. e. the Canticle of Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, printed in the same year as the preceding publication, at Soncino and Casale, in Italy, in a quarto volume.
6. Three folio volumes containing the Hagiographa with several rabbinic commentaries, printed at Naples in 1487; the text is accompanied by the vowels, but not by the accents.
7. A complete Hebrew Bible, in folio, printed in 1488 at Soncino, without any commentary. Its text, accompanied by both vowels and accents, is based partly on the previously printed portions of the Hebrew Bible, partly on Hebrew manuscripts, but it lacks accuracy.
8. A folio containing the Hebrew and Chaldee Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary, printed in 1490 in Isola del Liri.
9. A most accurate and highly esteemed quarto edition of the Pentateuch, printed at Lisbon in 1491.
10. A second complete edition of the Hebrew text, in quarto, printed in 1494 at Brescia. The editor calls himself Gerson ben Mose of Soncino. The text, which is accompanied by its vowels and accents, exhibits many peculiar readings not found in any other edition. The type is small and indistinct, the proofreading most slovenly; in a word, the edition is utterly defective. Luther based his translation on it.
11. The foregoing text is repeated in an octave edition printed at Pisa in 1494.
12. A folio edition of the Hebrew Bible, printed on parchment, bears no indication of its date or place of printing; it probably appeared in Constantinople about 1500.
13. To these may be added Seb. Münster's Hebrew-Latin Bible, printed in folio at Basle, 1534 and 1546, since its text is based on that of the 1488 and 1494 editions. Here also belong, for the same reason, the "Biblia Rabbinica Bombergiana", first edition (see below), the editions of R. Stephanus (1539-44, 1546), and the manual editions of Bomberg.

By these we understand editions of the Bible reproduced either from manuscripts or previous printed editions without the aid of critical apparatus and the application of critical principles. While the editions of the Hebrew text thus far enumerated owed their publication to Jewish enterprise, those that follow were, at least in part, due to Christian scholarship. For practical purposes we may divide the common editions into two classes: (1) those not depending on other printed editions (independent editions); (2) those depending, at least partly, on a previously printed text (dependent, or mixed, editions).

(1) Independent editions

This class of editions comprises two principal ones: (a) the "Biblia Polyglotta Complutensia"; (b) the "Biblia Rabbinica Bombergiana", second edition. Here we can give only a summary of their principal features.

(a) "Biblia Polyglotta Complutensia"

In the year 1502, Cardinal Ximenes engaged several learned scholars to prepare the edition of a polyglot Bible called variously after the name of its ecclesiastical patron and the place of its publication (Alcalá, in Lat. Complutum). The editors of the Hebrew text were Jewish converts. Ancient manuscripts, estimated at the value of 4000 florins, and probably also the best extant printed copies of the Hebrew text, were placed at their disposal. Thus the cardinal's scholars produced a text quite different from the other printed texts of his time. They marked the vowels, but not the accents. The Polyglot was finished in 1517, but was published only in 1520 or 1522, according to Gregory (Canon and Text of the New Testament, New York, 1907). The pure form of its text was only once reprinted in the so-called "Biblia Polyglotta Vatabli", or "Polyglotta Sanctandreana", or again, "Bertram's Polyglot" (Heidelberg, 1586, 1599, 1616).

(b) "Biblia Rabbinica Bombergiana", second edition

Daniel Bomberg, of Antwerp, who had established a printing-office for Hebrew and rabbinic literature in Venice, published, in 1518, two important editions of the Hebrew text: (a) an edition for Christian readers, in quarto, which was reprinted in 1521, 1525-28, 1533, 1544; (b) an edition for Jewish readers, edited by the Jewish convert Felix Pratensis. It contained the Targumim, the Massorah, and many Jewish commentaries, but did not satisfy the Jews. Hence Bomberg found it advisable to publish another edition under the editorship of R. Jacob ben Chayim, the most celebrated Jewish scholar of his time. He brought the text into closer agreement with the Massorah, and added several more Jewish commentaries. The work appeared in Venice, in four folio volumes, 1525-26, and was justly regarded as the first Massoretic Bible. It won the approbation of both Jewish and Christian scholars, so that it had to be republished in 1547-49, and 1568; the- last edition was brought out under the direction of John de Gara. In spite of the great merits of the work, it is not wholly free from defects; Ben Chayim paid too much attention to the Massorah and too little to reliable old manuscripts. The principal codex he followed fell afterwards into the hands of de Rossi, who testifies that it is quite defective and has not been carefully edited. Chayim printed it without correcting its most glaring mistakes.

The subsequent editions were influenced principally by Ben Chayim's text, and only secondarily by the Complutensian Polyglot. Thus the former text was repeated by Bragadin (Venice, 1617), and, in a slightly modified form, by Justiniani (Venice, 1551, 1552, 1563, 1573), the editors of Geneva (1618), John de Gara (Venice, 1566, 1568, 1582), Plantin (Antwerp, 1566), Hartmann (Frankfort, 1595, 1598), the editors of Wittenberg (1586, 1587), and Tores (Amsterdam, 1705). Long before the last publication appeared, John Buxtorf edited first the Hebrew text in manual form (Basle, 1611), then Chayim's rabbinic Bible in four folio volumes (Basle, 1618, 1619). Though he corrected some of Ben Chayim's mistakes, he allowed others to remain and even introduced some new ones. He ought not to have regulated the vocalization of the Targumim according to the vowels in the Chaldee fragments of the Bible, and it was at least inconsistent to change the Massorah according to the Hebrew text, seeing that Ben Chayim, whose text he professed to follow, had modified the Hebrew text according to the Massorah.

(2) Dependent, or mixed, editions

In the editions thus far mentioned the text of one or the other of the two principal forms of the Hebrew Bible was reproduced without any notable change. We have now to consider the attempts made to correct the text either according to the reading of other editions or according to that of ancient manuscripts.

(a) Texts Corrected according to Printed Texts

The first mixed text of the Hebrew Bible appeared in the Antwerp Polyglot (1569-72); the same text was repeated in the Paris Polyglot (1629-45), in the London Polyglot (1657), in that of Reineccius (Leipzig, 1750-51), the smaller Plantin editions (Antwerp, 1580, 1582; Burgos, 1581; Leyden, 1613), the manual edition of Reineccius (Leipzig, 1725, 1739, 1756), and in the Vienna Bible (1743). The beautifully printed Bible of Hutter (Hamburg, 1588) presents a peculiarly mixed text. Here may be added the names of a few editors who published a Hebrew text without vowels and without pretence to critical accuracy: Plantin (Antwerp, 1573, 8vo and 12mo; Leyden, 1595, 16mo; 1610, 12mo; Hanau, 1610, 24mo); Menasse ben Israel (Amsterdam, 1630, 1639, 8vo); Leusden (1694, 8vo); Maresius (1701, 8vo); Jablonsky (Berlin, 1711, 24mo); Forster (Oxford, 1750, 4to).

(b) Texts Corrected according to Codices and Printed Texts

The mixture of Chayim's text with the Complutensian could not give permanent satisfaction. Every comparison of the mixed text with that of any good manuscript brought to light many discrepancies and suggested the idea that a better Hebrew text might be obtained by the help of good codices. The first attempt to publish a Hebrew text thus corrected was made by John Leusden with the cooperation of the printer Jos. Athias (Amsterdam, 1661, 1667). The editor revised Chayim's text according to the readings of two codices, one of which was said to be about 900 years old. This edition, printed by Athias, was revised by George Nissel according to the readings of Hutter's Bible (Leyden, 1662). Nissel makes no pretence of having collated any codices, so that his work is noted for its scarcity rather than its critical value. Clodius, too, endeavoured to correct Athias's text according to earlier editions, but was not always successful (Frankfort, 1677, 1692, 1716). Jablonsky corrected the second edition of Athias according to the readings of several codices and of the better previous editions, paying special attention to the vowels and accents (Berlin, 1699, 1712); his first edition is commonly regarded as being one of the best. Van der Hooght corrected the second edition of Athias according to the Massorah and the previously printed editions (Amsterdam and Utrecht, 1705); his attention to the smallest details and the printer's care account for the general favour with which the edition was received. A still more perfect reprint of the edition was published by Props (Amsterdam, 1724). Simonis, too, published correct and cheap reprints of Van der Hooght's Bible. Opitz corrected the edition of Athias according to the readings of seventeen of the best previous editions and of several manuscripts (Kiel, 1709; Züllichau, 1741). He supervised the proof in person, and even the type was remarkable for its size and clearness, so that the edition was considered the most accurate extant. J. H. Michaelis edited the first Hebrew text with variants (Halle, 1720). He based it on the text of Jablonsky which he compared with twenty-four earlier editions and with five manuscripts preserved in Erfurt. The more important variants he added at the bottom of the page. It has been found that the comparison was made rather superficially as far as the printed editions were concerned, and there is no good reason for supposing that more care was taken in the comparison of the manuscript text. Still, the edition remains valuable, because it is the first of its kind, and some of its variants deserve attention even to-day. The Oratorian Father Houbigant tried to produce a text far superior to the commonly received one. Taking Van der Hooght's text for his basis, he added his own corrections and conjectures in critical notes. His apparatus consisted of a number of manuscripts, the ancient versions, and the Hebrew context. The precipitancy of his inferences and the rashness of his conjectures did much to create a prejudice against his method, though the merit of his work has been duly appreciated by scholars. His "Notæ Criticæ" were printed in separate form in Frankfort (1777), after the full edition had appeared in Paris (1753).

Here may be mentioned the work of the Italian Jew, Salomo Norzi. He began in the early years of the seventeenth century to compare Bomberg's text with the best of the printed editions, with a number of good manuscripts of both Bible and Massorah, with the Biblical citations found in the Talmud, the Midrashim, and in other rabbinic writings, and with the critical annotations of the more notable Jewish commentators; the results of his long study he summarized in a Massoretico-critical commentary intended to accompany the text of the Hebrew Bible, which had been rather scantily corrected. The title of the work was to be "Repairer of the Breach" (Is., lviii, 12), but the author died before he could publish his book. Nearly a century later, a Jewish physician named Raphael Chayim Italia had Norzi's work printed at his own expense under the title "Offering of the Gift" (Mantua, 1742-44). Among Christian scholars it appears to have remained unnoticed until Bruns and Dresde drew attention to it. In spite of his best intentions, Norzi at times rather corrupts than corrects the Hebrew text, because he prefers the readings of the Massorah to those of the manuscripts.

3. CRITICAL EDITIONS

The editions thus far enumerated can hardly be called critical, since their editors either lacked the necessary apparatus or did not consider it prudent to correct the received Hebrew text according to the full light of their textual information. Later on, two classes of scholars published really critical editions of the Hebrew text; some endeavoured to restore critically the most correct Massoretic text obtainable; others tried to find the most accurate pre-Massoretic text.

(1) Critical Editions of the Massoretic Text

In order to restore the correct Massoretic text it was necessary first to collect the apparatus. About the middle of the eighteenth century this need was felt very keenly by Benjamin Kennicott, a canon of Christ Church, Oxford, who determined to remedy the evil. Beginning in 1759, he collated either in person or through others as many as 615 Hebrew manuscripts, 52 printed editions, and the Talmud, continuing this preparation until the year 1773. Then he began the printing of the work (Vetus Testam. Hebr. cum var. lectionibus, 2 volumes, Oxford, 1776-80) based on Van der Hooght's Hebrew text as edited by Simonis. The variants, with their respective sources, were indicated below the text. In the introductory dissertation of the second volume the author gives the history of his enterprise and justifies its methods. He found this necessary because, after the appearance of the first volume, his critics had charged him with lack of care and discernment in the choice of the manuscripts used, of the variants noticed, and in the treatment of the Massorah.

Bernardo de Rossi, professor at Parma, tried to construct an apparatus that should not be open to the exceptions taken against Kennicott's work. The material on which de Rossi worked exceeded that of Kennicott by 731 manuscripts, 300 printed editions, and several ancient versions. In his work (Variæ lectiones Vet. Testam., 4 volumes, Parma, 1784-88) and its subsequent supplement (Supplementa ad varias s. text. lectiones, 1798) he noted the more important variants, gave a brief appreciation of their respective sources and their values, and paid due attention to the Massorah. He follows Van der Hooght's text as his basis, but considers it known, and so does not print it. All of de Rossi's critics are at one in admiring the laboriousness of his work, but they deny that its importance bears any proportion to the labour it implies. Perhaps the author himself, in his "Dissertatio præliminaris" to vol. IV, gives a fairer opinion of his work than his critics do. It can hardly be denied that de Rossi at least showed what can be done by a study of the manuscripts and of the old editions for the correction of the received Hebrew text.

The apparatus of the textual, or lower, criticism of the Old Testament text (see BIBLICAL CRITICISM) is not limited to the works of Kennicott and de Rossi; it comprises also the above-mentioned work of Salomo Norzi, re-edited in Vienna, 1813; the writings of Wolf ben Simson Heidenhaim; Frensdorff's "Ochla W' Ochlah" (1864), and "Massora Magna" (Hanover, 1876); the prophetic "Codex of St. Petersburg", dating back to 916, phototyped by Strack in 1876; all the recently discovered or recently studied codices and fragments, together with the works of the ancient Jewish grammarians and lexicographers.

But even with these means at their command, the editors of the Hebrew text did not at once produce an edition that could be called satisfactory from a critical point of view. The editions of Döderlein-Meisner (Leipzig, 1793) and Jahn (Vienna, 1807) only popularized the variants of Kennicott and de Rossi without utilizing them properly. The edition published under the name of Hahn and prefaced by Rosenmüller (Leipzig, 1834) is anything but critical. The stereotype editions of Hahn (Leipzig, 1839) and Theile (Leipzig, 1849) remained for many years the best manual texts extant. More recently the apparatus has been used to better advantage in the edition of Ginsburg (The New Massoretico-Critical Text of the Hebrew Bible, 1894) and in that of Baer and Delitzsch. The last-named appeared in single books, beginning with the year 1861. The Books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are still wanting; both editors are dead, so that their work will have to be completed by other hands.

(2) Critical Editions of the Pre-Massoretic Text

The editors whose work we have thus far noticed endeavoured to restore as far as possible the text of the Massorah. However valuable such an edition may be in itself, it cannot pretend to be the last word which textual criticism has to say concerning the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. After all, the Massoretic text attained to its fixed form in the early centuries of the Christian Era; before that period there were found many text-forms which differed considerably from the Massoretic, and which nevertheless may represent the original text with fair accuracy. The most ancient and reliable witness for the pre-Massoretic text-form of the Hebrew Bible is found in the Septuagint. But it is practically certain that, even at the time of the Septuagint, the original text had suffered considerable corruptions; these can be corrected only by comparing parallel passages of the context, or again by conjectural criticism; a critical edition of this kind presupposes, therefore, a critical edition of the Septuagint text.

Various attempts have been made to restore the pre-Massoretic text of single books of the Old Testament: thus Olshausen worked at the reconstruction of the Book of Genesis (Beiträge zur Kritik des überlieferten Textes im Buche Genesis, 1870); Wellhausen (Text der Bücher Samuelis, 1871), Driver (Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, 1890), and Klostermann (Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige, 1887) at the correction of the Books of Samuel; Cornill at the correction of the Book of Ezechiel (Das Buch des Propheten Ezechiel, 1886). To these might be added various other publications; e. g., several recent commentaries, some of the works published by Bickell, etc. But all these works concern only part of the Old Testament text. "The Sacred Books of the Old Testament", edited by Paul Haupt (see CRITICISM, BIBLICAL, s. v. Textual), is a series intended to embrace the whole Hebrew text, though the value of its criticism is in many instances questionable; Kittel's "Biblia Hebraica" (Leipzig, 1905), too, deserves a mention among the critical editions which attempt to restore the pre-Massoretic Hebrew text.

II. EDITIONS OF THE GREEK TEXT OF THE BIBLE

Before speaking of the Greek text of the New Testament, we shall have to give a brief account of the editions of the Greek books of the Old Testament. They appear partly in separate editions, partly in conjunction with the Septuagint.

1. SEPARATE EDITIONS

The principal separate editions of the deuterocanonical books appeared at Antwerp, 1566 (Plantin), 1584, and with Latin text taken from Ximenes' Polyglot, 1612; at Frankfort, 1694; Halle, 1749, 1766 (Kircher); Leipzig, 1757 (Reineccius), 1804 (Augusti), 1837 (Apel), 1871 (Fritzsche); Oxford, 1805; London, 1871 (Greek and English); Frankfort and Leipzig, 1691 (partial edition); Book of Tobias, Franeker, 1591 (Drusius), and Freiburg, 1870 (Reusch); Book of Judith, Würzburg, 1887 (Scholz, Commentar); Book of Wisdom, 1586 (Holkoth's "Prælectiones" edited by Ryterus); Coburg, 1601 (Faber); Venice, 1827 (Greek, Latin, and Armenian); Freiburg, 1858 (Reusch); Oxford, 1881 (Deane); Ecclesiasticus, 1551, '55, '68, '70, '89, '90 (Drusius), 1804 (Bretschneider); Books of Machabees, Franeker, 1600 (Drusius); I Mach., Helmstädt, 1784 (Bruns).

2. EDITIONS JOINED TO THE SEPTUAGINT

The history of these editions of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament is connected with that of the Septuagint editions. The reader will find full information on this question in the article SEPTUAGINT.

The newly invented art of printing had flourished for more than half a century before an attempt was made to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament. The Canticles, Magnificat, and Benedictus were printed at Milan, 1481; at Venice, 1486 and 1496, as an appendix to the Greek Psalter; John, i, 1, to vi, 58, appeared in Venice, 1495 and 1504, together with the poems of St. Gregory Nazianzen; the beginning of the Fourth Gospel, John, i, 1-14, was published at Venice, 1495, and at Tübingen, 1511. Not that the reading public of that age did not feel interested in the other parts of the New Testament; but it did not show any desire for the Greek text of the Bible. After the beginning of the sixteenth century the world's attitude with regard to the Greek text of the New Testament changed considerably. Not counting the publication of codices, mere stereotype reprints, or the issue of parts of the Testament, the number of editions of the complete Greek text has been estimated at about 550; in other words, since the beginning of the sixteenth century, every year has witnessed the publication of, roughly speaking, two new editions of the complete Greek text. For our present purpose, we may consider the principal editions under the four headings of the Complutensian, the Erasmian, the Received, and the Critical text.

(1) The Complutensian Text

It was the Archbishop of Toledo, Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros, who began at Alcalá, in 1502, the preparation of the edition of the Old Testament in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and of the New Testament in Greek and Latin. It has been thus far impossible to ascertain what codices served as the basis of the work called the Complutensian Polyglot. Though Leo X sent from the Vatican Library some manuscripts venerandoe vetustatis for the use of the scholars engaged in the work at Alcalá, it is quite certain that the well-known Codex Vaticanus was not among them. It appears that the Greek New Testament text of the Polyglot rests on the readings of a few manuscripts only, belonging to the so-called Byzantine family (see CRITICISM, BIBLICAL, s. v. Textual). The charge that the Complutensian text was corrected according to the evidence of the Latin Vulgate, is now generally abandoned, excepting with regard to I John, v, 7. The New-Testament text is contained in the fifth or, according to other arrangements, in the last of the six folios of the Polyglot; it was finished 10 Jan., 1514, and though the rest of the work was ready 10 July, 1517, four months before the great cardinal's death (8 Nov., 1517), it was not published until Leo X had given his permission proprio motu, 22 March, 1520.

The Complutensian text, corrected according to certain readings of the Erasmian and of that of Stephanus, was repeated in the Antwerp Polyglot published, under the auspices of King Philip II, by the Spanish theologian Benedict Arias Montanus and his companions, and printed by the celebrated typographer, Christopher Plantin, of Antwerp, 1569-72. The Greek New Testament text occurs in the fifth and in the last of the eight folios which make up the Antwerp Polyglot; in the fifth it is accompanied by the Syriac text (both in Hebrew and Syriac letters), its Latin version, and the Latin Vulgate; in the eighth volume, the Greek text has been corrected in a few passages, and is accompanied by the interlinear Latin Vulgate text. The text of the fifth volume of the Antwerp Polyglot was repeated only in the fifth volume of the Paris Polyglot, 1630-33, while that of the eighth volume reappears in a number of editions: Antwerp 1573-84 (four editions, Christopher Plantin); Leyden, 1591-1613 (four editions, Rapheleng); Paris, 1584 (Syriac, Latin, and Greek text; Prevosteau); Heidelberg, 1599, 1602 (Commelin); Lyons, 1599 (Vincent); Geneva, 1599; Geneva, 1609-27 (eight very different editions; Pierre de la Rouière, Sam. Crispin, James Stoer); Leipzig, 1657 (with the interlinear version of Arias Montanus; Kirchner); Vienna, 1740 (edited by Debiel, published by Kaliwoda); Mainz, 1753 (edited by Goldhagen; published by Varrentrapp); Liège, 1839 (Kersten). To these editions, containing the Plantinian, or the modified Complutensian, text, the following may be added, which represent a mixture of the text of Plantin and that of Stephanus: Cologne, 1592 (Amold Mylius; Greek and Latin text); Nuremberg, 1599-1600 (Hutter's Polyglot, twelve languages); 1602 (the same, four languages); Amsterdam, 1615 (the same, Welschaert); Geneva, 1628 (Jean de Tournes; one edition gives only the Greek text, another gives Beza's Latin version and a French translation).

(2) The Erasmian Text

On 17 April, 1515, the well known humanist, Beatus Rhenanus, invited Desiderius Erasmus, who lived at the time in England, to edit the Greek New Testament which John Froben, a celebrated printer of Basle, was anxious to publish before Pope Leo X should give his permission to put forth the Complutensian text printed more than a year before. Erasmus hastened to Basle, and printed almost bodily the text of the manuscripts that happened to fall into his hands: the Gospels according to a manuscript of Basle (Evv. 2); the Book of Acts and the Epistles according to another manuscript of Basle (Act. 2); the Apocalypse according to a manuscript named after Reuchlin "Codex Reuchlini" (Apoc. 1). He made a few corrections after superficially collating some other Basle manuscripts, Evv. 1 among the rest. Since Reuchlin's manuscript did not contain the end of the Apocalypse, Erasmus translated Apoc., xxii, 16b-21, from the Vulgate. The printing began in Sept., 1515, and the whole New Testament text was finished in the beginning of March, 1516. Under these circumstances satisfactory work could hardly be expected; Erasmus himself, in a letter to Pirkheimer, confesses that the first New Testament edition is "præcipitatum verius quam editum". In 1519 appeared the second Erasmus edition, in which the text of the first was almost entirely repeated, though several hundred mistakes were corrected. Luther followed this edition in his German translation of the New Testament. Urged by the importunities of his critics, Erasmus admitted into his third edition (1522) the passage I John, v, 7, according to the reading of the Codex Montfort. (Evv. 61). In his fourth edition (1527) he changed his text, especially in Apoc., in several passages according to the readings of the Complutensian Polyglot; in the fifth edition (1535) he repeated the text of the fourth with very few changes.

The Erasmian text was frequently reprinted: Venice, 1518; Hagenau, 1521; Basle, 1524, 31, etc.; Strasburg, 1524; Antwerp, 1571, etc.; Paris, 1546 and 1549 (Robertus Stephanus introduced corrections from the Complutensian Polyglot); in his third edition, R. Stephanus repeats the fifth Erasmian with variants from fifteen manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot (Paris, 1550). This edition is called Regia, and is the basis of the English Authorized Version (1611). Stephanus's fourth edition (Geneva, 1551) adds the Latin to the Greek text, the latter of which is for the first time divided into verses, a contrivance which was introduced into the Latin Vulgate in 1555, and then became general. The last edition of R. Stephanus was reprinted with slight modifications a great number of times; its principal repetitions were those supervised by Theodore Beta (Geneva, 1565, 1582, 1589, 1598 in folio; 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, 1604 in octavo) and the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir (Leyden, 1624, 1633, 1641; Amsterdam, 1656, 1662, 1670, 1678). In the preface of the second Elzevir edition (Leyden, 1633) we read the words: "Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum." Hence this Elzevir text became known as the textus receptus, or the Received Text.

(3) The Received Text

From what has been said it follows that the Received Text is that of the second Elzevir edition, which is practically identical with the text of Theodore Beza, or the fourth edition of Robertus Stephanus corrected in about one hundred and fifty passages according to the readings of the Codex Claromontanus, the Codex Cantabrigiensis, the Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, and certain critical notes of Henry Stephanus. In its turn, the fourth edition of Robertus Stephanus is almost identical with the fifth Erasmian edition which exhibits the text of five rather recent manuscripts corrected in about a hundred passages according to the reading of the Complutensian Polyglot. Still, it can hardly be denied that the readings peculiar to the text can be traced at least as far back as the fourth century. For about a century the Received Text held undisputed sway; its editions numbered about one hundred and seventy, some of the more important being the following:

• The fifth volume of Brian Walton's "Biblia Polyglotta" (London, 1657) contains the New Testament in Greek, Latin, Syria, Arabic, Ethiopia; a learned apparatus is added in the sixth volume.
• John Fell edited the text anonymously (Oxford, 1675) with variants collected "ex plus centime mss. codicils et antiques versionibus".
• John Mill reprinted the text of Stephanus, 1550, together with valuable prolegomena and a critical apparatus (Oxford, 1707), and L. Kuster published an enlarged and corrected edition of Mill's work (Amsterdam, 1710).
• Not to speak of Richard Bentley's "Proposals for Printing", published in 1720, we must mention Wetstein's edition, the prolegomena to which appeared anonymously in 1730, and were followed by the body of the work in two folios: (Amsterdam, 1751-1752) with an apparatus collected from codices, versions, readings of the Fathers, printed editions, and works of Biblical scholars. He also laid down principles for the use of variants, but did not put them into practice consistently enough.
• Principles advocated by Wetstein were more faithfully followed in W. Bowyer's edition of the Greek New Testament (London, 1763).
• When the foregoing scholars had collected an almost unmanageable number of variants, John Albert Bengel endeavoured to simplify their use by dividing them into two families, an Asiatic and an African; besides, he constructed a Greek text based on the readings of previous editions, excepting that of the Apocalypse, which was based also on the readings of manuscripts (Tübingen, 1734).
• This edition was enlarged add amended by Burck (Tübingen 1763).

In the last paragraph we have enumerated a list of editions of the Greek New Testament which contain, besides the text, a more or less complete apparatus for the critical reconstruction of the true reading. We shall now mention a number of editions in which such a reconstruction was attempted.

(1) Griesbach developed Bengel's method of grouping the variants into a formal system. He admitted three textual recensions: the Occidental, the Alexandrian (or Oriental), and the Constantinopolitan (or Byzantine). The first two he derived from the middle of the second century, and the third he considered as a mixture of the two, belonging to the fourth century, though subsequently modified. After laving down his principles of textual criticism, he tried to reconstruct the text best known in the ancient Church of both East and West. In 1774 he published the text of the synoptic Gospels; in 1796-1806, the text of the New Testament, called "Editio secunda"; in 1827 David Schulz added the first volume of a third edition. Griesbach is not always faithful to his principles, being too much under the sway of the Received Text; moreover, he did not sufficiently utilize the codices most important for his purpose. His text has been followed by Schott, Knapp, Tittmann, Hahn, and Theile.

(2) It suffices to mention the editions of Mace (London, 1729), Harwood (London, 1776), Matthaei (Riga, 1782-1788), Alter (Vienna, 1786), and Scholz (Leipzig, 1830-1836); the last named scholar (a Catholic, and professor of exegesis in the University of Bonn) reduced Griesbach's first two recensions to one, distinguishing it only from the Constantinopolitan textform, which he derived from the more correct copies circulating in Asia Minor, Syria, and Greece during the first centuries. Scholz himself had industriously collected manuscripts in the East. The labours of Hug and Eichhorn may also be mentioned briefly. The former substituted his so-called Common Edition, and the latter the uncorrected text of Asia and Africa, for Griesbach's Occidental class. Both Hug and Eichhorn assign the Alexandrian text-form to Hesychius, and the Byzantine to Lucian; finally, Hug assigns to the labours of Origen in his old age a fourth text-form identical with a middle class favoured by Griesbach and Eichhorn. Rinck (1830) divided the Occidental manuscripts into African and Latin, both of which are surpassed in purity by the Oriental.

(3) Carl Lachmann was the first critic who tried to reconstruct a New Testament text independent of the Received. Believing that the autograph text could not be found, he endeavoured to restore the text-form most common in the Oriental Church during the course of the fourth century. He published his small stereotype edition in 1831 (Berlin), and his large Latin-Greek text in 1842-50 (Berlin); this latter is accompanied by P. Buttmann's list of authorities for the Greek readings. Though Lachmann's text is preferable to the Received, his apparatus and the use he made of it are hardly satisfactory in the light of our present-day methods.

(4) Among the editors of the New Testament text, Tischendorf deserves a place of honour. During the thirty years which he devoted exclusively to textual studies, he published twenty or twenty-one editions of the Greek Testament; the most noteworthy among them belong to one or another of the following five recensions:

• In 1841 (Leipzig) he issued an edition in which he surpassed even Lachmann in his departure from the Received Text; the ancient manuscripts, the early versions, and the citations of the Fathers were regarded as the highest authorities in the selection of his reading. In 1842 Tischendorf published in Paris an edition destined for the French Protestants (Didot), and in the same year and place, at the instance of the Abbé I.M. Jager, another for the French Catholics, which he dedicated to Archbishop Affre. In this he received the Greek readings most in keeping with the Latin Vulgate.
• The second recension consists of four stereotype editions (12mo, 1842-59) containing the Greek text brought into agreement with the Latin Vulgate.
• Tischendorf's third recension is represented by his fourth (Lipsiensis secunda, 1849; Winter), his fifth (stereotype; Leipzig, 1850, Tauchnitz), and his sixth edition (with corrected Latin Vulgate and Luther's translation; Leipzig, 1854, Avenarius and Mendelssohn). A separate print of the Greek text of this last edition (1855) constitutes the first of Tischendorf's so-called "academic" editions. In the seventh reprint of the academic edition, as well as in the third of Tauchnitz's stereotype text, the readings were changed according to Tischendorf's fifth recension.
• The fourth recension is found in Tischendorf's "Editio Septima Critica Maior" (Leipzig, 1856-59; Winter). The work contains valuable prolegomena and a detailed critical apparatus.
• Tischendorf's fifth recension is found in his "Editio Octava Critica Maior" (Leipzig, 1864-72, Giesecke and Devrient). In his first recension Tischendorf is further removed than Lachmann from the Received Text; in his second he favours the Latin Vulgate; in the third, and still more in the fourth, he returns to the readings of the Received Text of Elzevir and Griesbach; but in the fifth he again follows the principles of Lachmann and favours the readings of his first recension rather than those of his third and fourth. Tischendorf will always occupy a high rank among the editors of the Greek text; but he is rather a student of the text than a textual critic. The "Prolegomena" to the eighth edition had to be supplied by C.R. Gregory on account of the great editor's untimely death (7 Dec., 1874). Gregory published these "Prolegomena" in three instalments (Leipzig, 1884, 1890, 1894), giving the reader a most satisfactory and complete summary of the information necessary or useful for the better understanding of the Greek text and its apparatus.

(5) The discrepancy between the text of Scholz's edition (Leipzig, 1830-36) and the readings of the early documents stimulated Tregelles to study the textual questions more thoroughly in order to relieve the existing uncertainty. The favourable reception of his "Book of Revelation in Greek . . . with a, new English Version" published with a "Prospectus of a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament, now in Preparation" encouraged him to continue the arduous course of studies he had begun. After collating all the more important manuscripts which were to be found in England, he visited the libraries of Rome, Florence, Modena, Venice, Munich, Basle, Paris, Hamburg, Dresden, Wolfenbüttel, and Utrecht for an accurate study of their respective codices. It has been noted that when the results of Tregelles differ from those of Tischendorf, the former are usually correct. He was enabled to publish the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark in 1857; those of St. Luke and St. John in 1861; the Acts and the Catholic Epistles in 1865; the Pauline Epistles in 1869-70. While engaged on the last chapters of the Apocalypse, he had a stroke of apoplexy, so that this part had to be finished by the hand of a friend (1872). Seven years later, Hort and Streane added "Prolegomena" to the work of Tregelles. A reprint of the text without its critical apparatus appeared in 1887. The character of the work is well described by its title, "The Greek New Testament, Edited from Ancient Authorities, with their Various Readings in full, and the Latin Version of Jerome" (London, 1857-79).

(6) The textual labours of Tregelles and Tischendorf were, to a certain extent, overshadowed by the work achieved by the two eminent Cambridge scholars, Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Like their predecessors, they acknowledged and followed the principles of Lachmann; but they differed from Lachmann as well as from Tischendorf and Tregelles in utilizing and systematizing the genealogical grouping of the ancient readings, thus connecting their labours with the views of Bengel and Criesbach. They distinguished four branches of textual tradition.

• The Western has a tendency to paraphrase the text and to interpolate it from parallel passages and other sources. It is found mainly in Codex D, the old Latin Version, and partly in Cureton's Syriac manuscript.
• The Alexandrian is purer than the Western, but contains changes of a grammatical character. It is found in the oldest uncial codices, except in B (and part of N), a number of cursive manuscripts, and the Egyptian versions.
• The Syrian is a mixture of all the other texts, or at least it contains some of the characteristics of all the others. It is found in the later uncials, and in most of the cursive manuscripts and versions.
• The neutral text comes nearest to the original text, being almost identical with it. Its pure form is found nowhere, but the readings of N and some of the oldest uncials, especially of B, give us the nearest approach to it.

As to the value of the several classes of readings, Hort believes that most of the Western and Alexandrian, and all the Syrian must be rejected; these latter he finds nowhere before the middle of the third century. All the necessary explanations have been collected in a volume accompanying Westcott and Hort's "New Testament in the Original Greek" (Cambridge and London, 1881). The volume contains an introduction (324 pages) and an appendix (173 pages). The introduction treats of the necessity of Textual New-Testament Criticism (pp. 4-18), of its various methods (19-72), of the application of its principles to the restoration of the New-Testament text (73-287), and finally of the character, the aim, and the arrangement of the new edition (288-324). The appendix contains critical comments on difficult passages (pp. 1-140), notes on certain orthographic and grammatical discrepancies between the ancient codices (pp. 141-173), and finally a complete list of the Old-Testament passages employed in the New (pp. 174-188). The volume containing the text of Westcott and Hort's edition was printed also separately in the year of the first appearance. In 1885 (1887, etc.) the text appeared separately in a volume of smaller size, and in 1895-96 both volumes of the original work were published anew in their larger form.

(7) Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, though hailed with delight by a great number of textual critics, did not meet with unchallenged praise. Among the dissenters were Godet, Wunderlich, Dobschütz, Jülicher, Bousset, and Burgon (The Revision Revised; The Quarterly Review, 1881-82; 2nd edit., London, 1885). Of these, some object to Westcott and Hort's method, others to their appreciation of Codex B, others to their attitude towards the so-called Western readings, others, finally, uphold the claims of the Received Text. In the third and fourth editions of his "Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament", F. H. Scrivener writes against the views of Tischendorf, Treffelles, and Westcott-Hort; he favours the readings of the later manuscripts in the reconstruction of the Greek New-Testament text, and advocates the return to a text-form similar to the Received Text. Among his various publications we may notice "The New Testament in the Original Greek, together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version" (New Edition, London, 1894) and his various collations of texts (Twenty Manuscripts of the Gospels, London, 1853; Collation of Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text, Cambridge and London, 1863, 1867). Here may be mentioned also "The Greek Testament with a critically revised text, a digest of various readings, marginal references to verbal and idiomatic usage, prolegomena, and a critical and exegetical commentary" edited by Henry Alford, afterwards Dean of Canterbury (London, 1849-1857; sixth edition, 1871). Tischendorf was of opinion that Alford's revision of the text was not satisfactory. Again "The New Testament in the Original Greek, with Notes and Introduction" (London, 1856-60; newly edited with index, 1867), by Christopher Wordsworth, Canon of Westminster, is a mixture of the texts of Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Elzevir. Finally, in connexion with the Revised Edition, Professor C. Palmer, of Oxford, published "The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorised Version" (Oxford, 1881; Clarendon Press).

(8) Among the chief works dealing with the textual restoration of the Greek New Testament which have appeared in recent years, we must mention the edition of B. Weiss: Part 1, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse (Leipzig, 1894, Hinrichs); Part II, The Pauline Epistles together with Hebr. (1896); Part III, The Gospels (1900). A manual edition of this text appeared 1902-05, in three volumes; the mistakes of the first issue were corrected as far as possible. Richard Francis Weymouth edited in a handy form "The Resultant Greek Testament" (London, 1886, Elliot Stock; cheap edition, 1892 and 1896; third edition, 1905); in it he gives us the text on which the majority of modern editors are agreed, together with all the readings of Stephens (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Lightfoot, Ellicott, Alford, Weiss, the Bale Edition (1880), Westcott-Hort, and the Revision Committee, with an introduction by J. J. St. Perowne. The editor may not give the reader anything of his own, but he furnishes an amount of textual erudition which the Bible student can hardly afford to neglect. Dr. E. Nestle has edited a "Novum Testamentum Græce cum apparatu critico", (Stuttgart, 1898, 1899, 1901, 1903, 1904, 1906) based on the four most prominent of the recent texts: Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, Weymouth, and Weiss. All the variants of the four editions, excepting as to minor details, are noted, so that the reader obtains at a glance the results of the foremost textual criticism on any given text. It would be difficult indeed to contrive a handier and more complete edition of the Greek text than this of Nestle's, which seems likely to become the Received Text of the twentieth century.

(9) It is, therefore, all the more to be regretted that Nestle's text cannot be recommended to the general Catholic reader. Not to mention other shortcomings, it places John, v, 4, and vii, 53-viii, 11, among the foot-notes, and represents Mark, xvi, 9-20, together with an alternative ending of the Second Gospel, as a "Western non-interpolation", suggesting that it is an ancient Eastern interpolation of the sacred text. The rules of the new Index enumerate with precision those classes of Catholics who may read texts like that of Nestle; others must content themselves with one or another of the following editions: P.A. Gratz reedited the Complutensian text (Tübingen, 1821; Füs); L. Van Ess published a combination of the Complutensian and the Erasmian text (Tübingen, 1827; Füs); Jaumann adheres closely to the edition of Tittmann (Munich, 1832; Lindauer); we have already mentioned Tischendorf's text prepared for Catholic readers under the influence of I.M. Jager (Paris, 1847, 1851, 1859); Reithmayr produced a combination of this latter edition and that of Lachmann (Munich, 1847; Ratisbon, 1851); V. Loch derived his text, as far as possible, from the Codex Vaticanus (Ratisbon, 1862); Tauchnitz published, with the approbation of the proper ecclesiastical authority of Dresden, Theile's text almost without change, together with the text of the Latin Vulgate; Brandseheid edited the Greek text and the Latin Vulgate of the New Testament in such a way as to bring the former as much as possible into agreement with the latter (Freiburg, 1901, etc.); finally, M. Hetzenauer published his "Novum Testamentum Græce" (Innsbruck, 1904, Wagner), reproducing in separate form the Greek text of his Greek-Latin edition (1896-98). He is more independent of the Vulgate text than Brandscheid, and he adds the more important variants in the margin, or in footnotes, or again in an appendix critica.

(10) It must not be imagined that the textual criticism of the New Testament has arrived at a state that can be regarded as final. Without doing injustice to the splendid results attained by the labours of the scholars enumerated in this article, it must be confessed that the condition of the textual criticism of the New Testament is more uncertain to-day than it was twenty years ago. The uncertainty springs mainly from the doubts of our critics as to the real value of the Western readings. Professor Blass may exaggerate the importance of these Western readings, at least with regard to the Book of Acts, when he considers them as the transcript of the inspired writer's first or rough copy, while he identifies the Eastern with the copy actually sent out to Antioch. Even if students repudiate Blass's view, they will be influenced by the conservative work of H. von Soden, which is now (1908) in course of publication (Die Schriften des NT. in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, Berlin, Duncker). The writer distinguishes three groups of readings: most manuscripts present the Antiochene text, which is probably the recension of Lucian, called K; about fifty witnesses represent the Egyptian text, probably the recension of Hesychius, denoted by H; the third group, denoted by I, is the Vulgate of Palestine. An investigation of the original form and the development of each of these recensions gives rise to a number of subdivisions. The problem for the textual critic is to discover the archetype which lies in each case at the bottom of the three recensions. If von Soden's method should eventually prove to be false, it may at least contribute to the improvement of our Greek New-Testament editions.

SWETE; An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge, 1902), 171 sqq.; Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (Leipzig, 1897) 64 sqq.; NESTLE in HAST., Dictionary of the Bible (New York, 1903), IV, 437 sqq.; KAULEN in Kirchenlex., II. 596 sq.; MASCH, Bibliotheca sacra (Halle, 1778), I, 427-436

Several sources have been mentioned in the course of the article. We might refer the reader for a list of the other principal authors to KAULEN-WELTE-HUNDHAUSEN in Kirchenlex., s. v. Bibelausgaben, or to VON GEBHARDT in Realencyclopädie; LE LONG, Bibliotheca sacra, ed. MASCH (Halle, 1778), I, 187 sqq.; ROSENMÜLLER, Handbuch für die Literatur der biblischen Kritik und Exegese (Göttingen, l797), I, 278 sqq.; HUG, Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (4th ed., Stuttgart, 1847), I, 268 sqq.; TREGELLES, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London, 1854); HORNE AND TREGELLES, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London, 1856), 116 sqq., 648 sqq.; O'CALLAGHAN, A List Of Editions of the Holy Scriptures and parts thereof printed in America previous to 1860 (Albany, 1861); REUSS, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Groeci (Brunswick, 1872); HALL, A Critical Bibliography of the Greek New Testament as Published in America (Philadelphia, 1883); HUNDHAUSEN, Editionen des neutestamentlichen Textes und Schriften zur neutestamentlichen Textkritik seit Lachmann in Literar Handweiser (1882), 321 sqq.; SCHAFF, A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version (3rd ed., New York, 1888), 497 sqq.; RÜGG, Die neutestamentliche Textkritik seit Lachmann (Zürich, 1892); LUCAS, Textual Criticism and the Acts of the Apostles in Dublin Review (1894), 30 sqq.; BLASS, Acta Apostolorum etc. (Göttingen, 1895); ID., Acta Apostolorum, etc. (Leipzig, 1896); Id., Evangelium sec. Johannem (Leipzig, 1902); GREGORY, Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes (Leipzig, 1902); GREGORY, Canon and Text of the N.T. (New York, 1907); VON SODEN, Dir Schriften des NT. in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt etc. (Berlin, 1902, 1906).

A. J. MAAS

Congregation of St. Edmund

Founded in 1843, by Jean-Baptiste Muard, at Pontigny, France, for the work of popular missions. The members also devote themselves to parochial work, to the education of youth in seminaries and colleges, to the direction of pious associations, and to foreign missions. The motherhouse is at Pontigny, but since the expulsion of the religious orders the superior general resides at Hitchin, England. In the United States, the congregation has two houses: a missionary house and apostolic school at Swanton, Vermont, for the training of young men who wish to study for the priesthood and the religious life; and a college at Winooski, Vermont, with 12 fathers, 8 scholastics, and 100 pupils.

E.M. SALMON

Ven. Edmund Arrowsmith

English martyr, born in 1585 at Haddock; executed at Lancaster, 23 August, 1628. He is of great reputation for the numerous favours, spiritual and temporal, which are won through his "Holy Hand", still preserved as an object of veneration in the church of St. Oswald, Ashton, near the martyr's birthplace. His parents suffered much for their religion, and the future martyr was once, when a child, left shivering in his night-clothes by the pursuivants, who carried his parents off to Lancaster jail. He entered Douai College in 1605, but ill-health compelled him to interrupt his studies; he was, however, ordained priest in 1612. Lancashire was the scene of his missionary labours and he was eminent for "fervour, zeal and ready wit." Apprehended, probably in 1622, he was brought before Bridgeman, Protestant Bishop of Chester, and had a lively discussion with him and his ministers. Regaining his liberty he entered the Society of Jesus in 1623, and made his noviceship on the Mission, retiring to Essex for a spiritual retreat. He was eventually betrayed by false brethren, tried at Lancaster in 1628, and was found guilty of high treason for being a Jesuit priest and a seducer in religion. His fellow-prisoner, Father John Southworth, afterwards a martyr, absolved him as he went forth to undergo the usual butchery.

CHALLONER, Missionary Priests (1874), II, 68; FOLEY, Records of the English Province, S.J., II, 24 sqq.; GILLOW, Bibl. Dict. Eng. Cath., I, 62.

PATRICK RYAN

St. Edmund Campion

English Jesuit and martyr; he was the son and namesake of a Catholic bookseller, and was born in London, 25 Jan., 1540; executed at Tyburn, 1 Dec., 1581. A city company sent the promising child to a grammar school and to Christ Church Hospital. When Mary Tudor entered London in state as queen, he was the schoolboy chosen to give the Latin salutatory to her majesty. Sir Thomas White, lord mayor, who built and endowed St. John's College at Oxford, accepted Campion as one of his first scholars, appointed him junior fellow at seventeen, and, dying, gave him his last messages for his academic family. Campion shone at Oxford in 1560, when he delivered one oration at the reburial of Amy Robsart, and another at the funeral of the founder of his own college; and for twelve years he was to be followed and imitated as no man ever was in an English university except himself and Newman. He took both his degrees, and became a celebrated tutor, and, by 1568, junior proctor. Queen Elizabeth had visited Oxford two years before; she and Dudley, then chancellor, won by Campion's bearing, beauty, and wit, bade him ask for what he would. Successes, local responsibilities, and allurements, his natural ease of disposition, the representations, above all, of his friend Bishop Cheyney of Gloucester, blinded Campion in regard to his course as a Catholic: he took the Oath of Supremacy, and deacon's orders according to the new rite. Afterthoughts developing into scruples, scruples into anguish, he broke off his happy Oxford life when his proctorship ended, and betook himself to Ireland, to await the reopening of Dublin University, an ancient papal foundation temporarily extinct. Sir Henry Sidney, the lord deputy, was interested in Campion's future as well as in the revival which, however, fell through. With Philip Sidney, then a boy, Campion was to have a touching interview in 1577.

As too Catholic minded an Anglican, Campion was suspected, and exposed to danger. Hidden in friendly houses, he composed his treatise called "A History of Ireland" Written from an English standpoint it gave much offence to the native Irish, and was severely criticized, in the next century, by Geoffrey Keating In his Irish history of Ireland. Urged to further effort by the zeal of Gregory Martin, he crossed to England in disguise and under an assumed name, reaching London in time to witness the trial of one of the earliest Oxonian martyrs, Dr. John Storey. Campion now recognized his vocation and hastened to the seminary at Douai. Cecil lamented to Richard Stanihurst the expatriation of "one of the diamonds of England." At Douai Campion remained for his theological course and its lesser degree, but then set out as a barefoot pilgrim to Rome, arriving there just before the death of St. Francis Borgia; "for I meant", as he said at his examination, "to enter into the Society of Jesus, thereof to vow and to be professed". This he accomplished promptly in April (1573), being the first novice received by Mercurianus, the fourth general. As the English province was as yet non-existent, he was allotted to that of Bohemia, entering on his noviceship at Prague and passing his probation year at Brunn in Moravia. Returning to Prague, he taught in the college and wrote a couple of sacred dramas; and there he was ordained in 1578. Meanwhile, Dr. Allen was organizing the apostolic work of the English Mission, and rejoiced to secure Fathers Robert Parsons and Edmund Campion as his first Jesuit helpers. In the garden at Brunn, Campion had had a vision, in which Our Lady foretold to him his martyrdom. Comrades at Prague were moved to make a scroll for P. Edmundus Campianus Martyr, and to paint a prophetic garland of roses within his cell. Parsons and Campion set out from Rome, had many adventures, and called upon St. Charles Borromeo in Milan, and upon Beza in Geneva. Campion was met in London, and fitly clothed, armed, and mounted by a devoted young convert friend. His office was chiefly to reclaim Catholics who were wavering or temporizing under the pressure of governmental tyranny; but his zeal to win Protestants, his preaching, his whole saintly and soldierly personality, made a general and profound impression. An alarm was raised and he fled to the North, where he fell again to writing and produced his famous tract, the "Decem Rationes". He returned to London, only to withdraw again, this time towards Norfolk. A spy, a former steward of the Roper family, one George Eliot, was hot upon his track, and ran him and others down at Lyford Grange near Wantage in Berkshire on 17 July, 1581.

Amid scenes of violent excitement, Campion was derisively paraded through the streets of his native city, bound hand and foot, riding backwards, with a paper stuck in his hat to denote the "seditious Jesuit". First thrown into Little Ease at the Tower, he was carried privately to the house of his old patron, the Earl of Leicester; there he encountered the queen herself, and received earnest proffers of liberty and preferments would he but forsake his papistry. Hopton having tried in vain the same blandishments, on Campion's return to the Tower, the priest was then examined under torture, and was reported to have betrayed those who had harboured him. Several arrests were made on the strength of the lie. He had asked for a public disputation. But when it came off in the Norman chapel of the Tower, before the Dean of St. Paul's and other divines, Campion had been denied opportunity to prepare his debate, and had been severely racked. Thus weakened, he stood through the four long conferences, without chair, table, or notes, and stood undefeated. Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel, who was looking on in the flush of worldly pride, became thereby inspired to return to God's service. The privy council, at its wits' end over so purely spiritual a "traitor", hatched a plot to impeach Campion's loyalty, and called in the hirelings Eliot and Munday as accusers. A ridiculous trial ensued in Westminster Hall, 20 Nov., 1581. Campion, pleading not guilty, was quite unable to hold up his often-wrenched right arm, seeing which, a fellow prisoner, first kissing it, raised it for him. He made a magnificent defence. But the sentence was death, by hanging, drawing, and quartering: a sentence received by the martyrs with a joyful shout of Haec dies and Te Deum. Campion, with Sherwin and Briant, who were on a separate hurdle, was dragged to Tyburn on 1 December. Passing Newgate arch, he lifted himself as best he could to salute the statue of Our Lady still in situ. On the scaffold, when interrupted and taunted to express his mind concerning the Bull of Pius V excommunicating Elizabeth, he answered only by a prayer for her, "your Queen and my Queen". He was a Catholic Englishman with political opinions which were not Allen's, though he died, as much as ever Felton did, for the primacy of the Holy See. The people loudly lamented his fate; and another great harvest of conversions began. A wild, generous-hearted youth, Henry Walpole, standing by, got his white doublet stained with Campion's blood; the incident made him, too, in time, a Jesuit and a martyr.

Historians of all schools are agreed that the charges against Campion were wholesale sham. They praise his high intelligence, his beautiful gaiety, his fiery energy, his most chivalrous gentleness. He had renounced all opportunity for a dazzling career in a world of master men. Every tradition of Edmund Campion, every remnant of his written words, and not least his unstudied golden letters, show us that he was nothing less than a man of genius; truly one of the great Elizabethans, but holy as none other of them all. He was beatified by Pope Leo XIII on 9 December, 1886, and canonized by Pope Paul VI in 1970. Relics of him are preserved in Rome and Prague, in London, Oxford, Stonyhurst, and Roehampton. A not very convincing portrait was made soon after his death for the Gesù in Rome under the supervision of many who had known him. Of this there is a copy in oils at Stonyhurst, and a brilliantly engraved print in Hazart's "Kerckelycke Historie" (Antwerp, 1669), Vol. III (Enghelandt, etc.), though not in every copy of that now scarce work.

Notes

CAMPION'S Historie of Ireland was first published by STANIHURST in HOLINSHED, Chronicles (1587), then in WARE'S book under the same title (1633). and again by the Hibernia Press (Dublin, 1809); Edmundi Campiani Decem Rationes et alia Opuscula, carefully edited (Antwerp, 1631); this included Orations, Letters, and the Narratio Divortii Henrici VIII, Regis Angliae, ab Uzore et ab Ecclesia, first printed by HARPESFIELD. There is no modern ed. or tr. The standard biography is SIMPSON, Edmund Campion, Jesuit Protomartyr of England (London, 1866; reissued, London, 1907). Accounts of Campion's life, labours, and death are in CHALLONER, Memoirs of Missionary Priests; FOLEY, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, and STANTON, Menology of England and Wales.

L.I. GUINEY

St. Edmund Rich

Archbishop of Canterbury, England, born 20 November, c. 1180, at Abingdon, six miles from Oxford; died 16 November, 1240, at Soissy, France. His early chronology is somewhat uncertain. His parents, Reinald (Reginald) and Mabel Rich, were remarkable for piety. It is said that his mother constantly wore hair-cloth, and attended almost every night at Matins in the abbey church. His father, even during the lifetime of his mother, entered the monastery of Eynsham in Oxfordshire. Edmund had two sisters and at least one brother. The two sisters became nuns at Catesby. From his earliest years he was taught by his mother to practise acts of penance, such as fasting on Saturdays on bread and water, and wearing a hair shirt. When old enough he was sent to study at Oxford. While there, the Child Christ appeared to him while he was walking alone in the fields. In memory of what passed between him and Christ on that occasion, he used every night to sign his forehead with the words "Jesus of Nazareth", a custom he recommended to others. Anxious to preserve purity of mind and body, Edmund made a vow of chastity, and as a pledge thereof he procured two rings; one he placed on the finger of Our Lady's statue in St. Mary's Oxford, the other he himself wore.

About 1195, in company with his brother Richard, he was sent to the schools of Paris. Thenceforward, for several years, his life was spent between Oxford and Paris. He taught with success in both universities. After having devoted himself to the study of theology, Edmund acquired fame as a preacher, and was commissioned to preach the Sixth Crusade in various parts of England. All this time his austerities were very great. Most of the night he spent in prayer, and the little sleep he allowed himself was taken without lying down. Though thus severe to himself, he was gentle and kind towards others, especially to the poor and sick, whom sometimes he personally attended. In 1222 Edmund became treasurer of Salisbury cathedral. Ten years later he was appointed to the Archbishopric of Canterbury by Gregory IX and consecrated 2 April, 1234.

Notwithstanding the gentleness of his disposition, he firmly defended the rights of Church and State against the exactions and usurpations of Henry III. He visited Rome in 1237 to plead his cause in person. This fearless policy brought him into conflict, not only with the king and his party, but also with the monks of Rochester and Canterbury. Determined opposition met him from all sides, and constant appeals were carried to Rome over his head. In consequence, a papal legate was sent to England, but Henry adroitly managed the legate's authority to nullify Edmund's power. Unable to force the king to give over the control of vacant benefices, and determined not to countenance evil and injustice, Edmund saw he could not longer remain in England. In 1240 he retired to the Cistercian Abbey of Pontigny. Here he lived like a simple religious till the summer heat drove him to Soissy, where he died. Within six years he was canonized, and numerous miracles have been wrought at his shrine. Notwithstanding the devastation that from time to time has overtaken Pontigny, the body of St. Edmund is still venerated in its abbey church. Important relics of the saint are preserved at Westminster Cathedral; St. Edmund's College, Ware; Portsmouth Cathedral, and Erdington Abbey. The ancient proper Mass of St. Edmund, taken from the Sarum Missal, is used in the Diocese of Portsmouth, of which St. Edmund is patron. In September, 1874, 350 English pilgrims visited St. Edmund's shrine. The community, known as Fathers of St. Edmund, were forced to leave their home at Pontigny, by the Associations law. The "Speculum Ecclesiae", an ascetical treatise, and the "Provincial Constitutions" are the most important of St. Edmund's writings.

Besides the three ancient lives of St. Edmund by MATTHEW PARIS, ROGER BACON, and ROGER RICH, there is a fourth ascribed to BERTRAND OF PONTIGNY in MARTENE AND DURAND, Thesaurus Ancedororum. For a complete account of the MSS. records, the reader is referred to WALLACE, St. Edmund of Canterbury (London, 1893), 1-18, and to DE PARAVICINI, St. Edmund of Abingdon (London, 1898), xiii-xlii; BUTLER, Lives of the Saints, 16th Nov.; S. Edmund Archp. of Canterbury (London, 1845) (Tractarian); WARD, St. Edmund Archbp. of Canterbury (London, 1903); ARCHER in Dict. of Nat. Biog., s.v.

COLUMBA EDMONDS

St. Edmund the Martyr

King of East Anglia, born about 840; died at Hoxne, Suffolk, 20 November, 870. The earliest and most reliable accounts represent St. Edmund as descended from the preceding kings of East Anglia, though, according to later legends, he was born at Nuremberg (Germany), son to an otherwise unknown King Alcmund of Saxony. Though only about fifteen years old when crowned in 855, Edmund showed himself a model ruler from the first, anxious to treat all with equal justice, and closing his ears to flatterers and untrustworthy informers. In his eagerness for prayer he retired for a year to his royal tower at Hunstanton and learned the whole Psalter by heart, in order that he might afterwards recite it regularly. In 870 he bravely repulsed the two Danish chiefs Hinguar and Hubba who had invaded his dominions. They soon returned with overwhelming numbers, and pressed terms upon him which as a Christian he felt bound to refuse. In his desire to avert a fruitless massacre, he disbanded his troops and himself retired towards Framlingham; on the way he fell into the hands of the invaders. Having loaded him with chains, his captors conducted him to Hinguar, whose impious demands he again regjected, declaring his religion dearer to him than his life. His martyrdom took place in 870 at Hoxne in Suffolk. After beating him with cudgels, the Danes tied him to a tree, and cruelly tore his flesh with whips. Throughout these tortures Edmund continued to call upon the name of Jesus, until at last, exasperated by his constancy, his enemies began to discharge arrows at him. This cruel sport was continued until his body had the appearance of a porcupine, when Hinguar commanded his head to be struck off. From his first burial-place at Hoxne his relics were removed in the tenth century to Beodricsworth, since called St. Edmundsbury, where arose the famous abbey of that name. His feast is observed 20 November, and he is represented in Christian art with sword and arrow, the instruments of his torture.

Thomas Arnold, Memorials of St. Edmund's Abbey in R.S. (London, 1890), containing Abbo of Fleury, Passio S. Eadmundi (985), and Gaufridus De Fontibus, Infantia S. Eadmundi (c. 1150); Tynemouth and Capgrave, Nova Legenda Angliae, ed. Horstman (Oxford, 1901); Butler, Lives of the Saints (Dublin, 1872); Mackinlay, Saint Edmund King and Martyr (London, 1893).

G.E. PHILLIPS

Education

IN GENERAL

In the broadest sense, education includes all those experiences by which intelligence is developed, knowledge acquired, and character formed. In a narrower sense, it is the work done by certain agencies and institutions, the home and the school, for the express purpose of training immature minds. The child is born with latent capacities which must be developed so as to fit him for the activities and duties of life. The meaning of life, therefore, of its purposes and values as understood by the educator, primarily determines the nature of his work. Education aims at an ideal, and this in turn depends on the view that is taken of man and his destiny, of his relations to God, to his fellowmen, and to the physical world. The content of education is furnished by the previous acquisition of mankind in literature, art, and science, in moral, social, and religious principles. The inheritance, however, contains elements that differ greatly in value, both as mental possessions and as means of culture; hence a selection is necessary, and this must be guided largely by the educational ideal. It will also be influenced by the consideration of the educative process. Teaching must be adapted to the needs of the developing mind, and the endeavour to make the adaption more thorough results in theories and methods which are, or should be, based on the findings of biology, physiology, and psychology.

The work of education begins normally in the home; but it is, for obvious reasons, continued in institutions where other teachers stand in place of the parents. To secure efficiency it is necessary that each school be properly organized, that the teachers be qualified and that the subjects of instruction be wisely chosen. Since the school, moreover, is so largely responsible for the intellectual and moral formation of those who will later, as members of society, be useful or harmful, there is evidently needed some higher direction than that of the individual teacher, in order that the purpose of education may be realized. Both the Church and the State, therefore, have interests to safeguard; education is to strive for the true ideal through the obvious that education at any given time expresses while, in its practical control, the existing relations between the temporal power and the spiritual assume concrete form. As, moreover, these ideas and relations have varied considerably in the course of time, it is quite intelligible that a solution of the central educational problems should be sought in history; and it is furthur beyond question that histoical study, in this as in other departments, has a manifold utility. But a mere recital of facts is of little avail unless certain fact of Christian revelation be given its due importance. It is needful, then, to distinguish the constant elements in education from those that are variable; the former including man's nature, destiny, and relations to God, the latter all those changes in theory, conduct of educational work. It is with the first aspect of the subject that the present article is mainly concerned; and from this standpoint education may be defined as that form of social activity whereby, under the direction of mature minds and by the use of adequate means, the physical, intellectual, and moral powers of the immature human being are so developed as to prepare him for the accomplishment of his lifework here and for the attainment of his eternal destiny. Neither this nor any other definition was formulated from the beginning. In primitive times the helplessness and needs of the child were so obvious that his elders by a natural impulse gave him a training in the rude arts that enabled him to procure the necessaries of life, while they taught him to proptitate the hidden powers in each object of nature, and handed on to him the tribal customs and traditions. But of education properly so called the savage knows nothing, and much less does he busy himself with theory or plan. Even civilized peoples carry on the work of education for a long time before they begin to reflect upon its meaning, and such reflection is guided by philosophical speculation and by established social, religious, and political institutions. Often, too, their theorizing is the workof exceptional minds, and presents a higher ideal than might be inferred from their educational practice. Nevertheless, an account of what was done by the principal peoples of antiquity will prove useful by bringing out the profound modification which Christianity wrought.

ORIENTAL EDUCATION

The invention of writing was of the utmost importance for the developments of language and the keeping of records. The earliest texts, chiefly of a religious nature, became the sources of knowledge and the means of education. Such were in China the writings of Confucius, in India the Vedas, in Egypt the Book of the Dead, in Persia the Avesta. The main purpose in having these books studied by youth was to secure uniformity of thought and custom, and unvarying conformity with the past. In this respect Chinese education is typical. The sacred writings contained minute prescriptions for conduct in every circumstance and station of life. These the pupil was obliged to memorize in a purely mechanical fashion; whether he understood the words as he repeated them was quite indifferent. He simply stored his memory with a multitude of established forms and phrases, which subsequently he employed in the preparation of essays and in passing the governmental examinations. That he should learn to think for himself was of course out of the question.

With such a training, the development of free personality was impossible. In China, the family, with its sacred traditions and its ancestor-worship was controlled by the State; in Egypt by the priesthood; in India by the different castes. There was, doubtless, in the Oriental mind a consciousness of personality; but no effort was made to strengthen it and give it value. On the contrary, the Hindu philosophy, which regarded knowledge as the means of redemption from the miseries of life, placed that redemption itself in nirvana, the extinction of the individual through absorption into the being of the world. The position of women was, in general, a degraded one. Though the early training of the child devolved upon the mother, her responsibility brought with it no dignity. But little provision was made for the education of girls; their only vocation was to marry, bear childdren, and render service to the head of the family.

In view of these facts, it cannot be said that education as the Western world conceives it owes any great debt to the East. It is true that some of the sciences, mathematics, astronomy, and chronology, and some of the arts, as sculpture and architecture, were carried to a certain degree of perfection; but the very success of Oriental ability and skill in these lines only emphasizes by contrast the deficiencies of Oriental education. Even in the sphere of morality the same antagonism appears between precept and practice. It cannot and need not be denied that many of the sayings, e.g. of Confucius, evince a high ideal of virtue, while some of the Hindu proverbs, such as those of the "Pantscha-tantra", are full of practical wisdom. Yet these facts only make it more difficult to answer the question: Why was the actual living of these people so far removed from the formally accepted standards of virtue? Nevertheless, Oriental education has a peculiar significance; it shows quite plainly the consequences of sacrificing the individual to the interests of human institutions, and of reducing education to a machine like process, the aim of which is to mould all minds upon one unchanging pattern; and it further shows how little can be accomplished for real education by despotic authority, which demands, and is satisfied with, an outward observance of custom and law. (See Davidson. A History of Education, New York, 1901.)

THE GREEKS

If the education of the Oriental peoples was stationary, that of the Greeks exhibits a progressive development which passes from one extreme to another through a variety of movements and reactions, of ideals and practice. What remains constant throughout is the idea that the purpose of education is to train youth for citizenship. This, however, was conceived, and its realization attempted, in different ways by the several City-States. In Sparta, the child, according to the Code of Lycurgus, was the property of the State. From his seventh year onward he received a public training whose one object was to make him a soldier, by developing physical strength, courage, self control, and obedience to law. It was a hard training in gymnastic exercises, with little attention to the intellectual side and less to the aesthetic; even music and dancing took on a military character. Girls were subjected to the same severe discipline, not so much to emphasize the equality of the sexes as to train the sturdy mothers of a warrior race.

The ideal of Athenian education was the completely developed man. Beauty of mind and body, the cultivaation of every inborn faculty and energy, harmony between thought and life, decorum, temperance, and regularity -- such were the results aimed at in the home and in the school, in social intercourse, and in civic relation. "We are lovers of the beautiful", said Pericles, "yet simple in our tastes, and we cultivate the mind without the loss of manliness" (Thucydides, II, 40). The means of culture were music and gymnastics, the former including history, poetry, the drama, oratory, and science, along with music in the narrower sense; while the latter comprised games, atheltic exercises, and the training for military duty. That music was no mere "accomplishment" and that gymnastics had a higher aim than bodily strength or skill is evident from what Plato tells us in the Protagoras. The Greeks indeed laid stress on courage, temperances, and obedience to law; and if their theoretical disquisitions could be taken as fair accounts of their actual practice, it would be difficult to find, among the products of human thinking, a more exalted ideal. The essential weakness of their moral education was the failure to provide adequate sanction for the principles they formulated and for the counsels they gave to youth. The practice of religion, whether in public services or in household worship exerted but little influence upon the formation of character. The Greek deities, after all, were no models for imitation; some of them could scarcely have been objects of reverence, since they were endowed with the weaknesses and passions of men. Religion itself was mechanical and external; it did not touch conscience nor awaken the sense of sin. As to the future life, the Greeks believed in the immortality of the soul; but this belief had little or no practical significance. Thus the motive for virtuous action was found, not in respect for Divine law nor in the hope of eternal reward, but simply in the desire to temper in due proportion the elements of human nature. Virtue is not self-repression for the sake of duty, but, as Plato says, "a kind of health, and beauty and good habit of the soul"; while vice is "a disease and deformity and sickness of it." The just man

will so regulate his own character as to be on good terms with himself, and to set those three principles {reasons, passion, and desire} in tune together, as if they were verily three chords of a harmony, a higher, and a lower, and a middle, and whatever may lie between these; and after he had bound all these together and reduced the many elelments of his nature to a real unity as a temperate and duly harmonized man, he will then at length proceed to do whatever he may have to do. (Republic, IV, 443)

This conception of virtue as a self-balancing was closely bound up with that idea of personal worth which has already been mentioned as the central element in Greek life and education. But the personality referred to was not that of man for the sake of his humanity, nor even that of the Greek for the sake of his nationality; it was the personality of the free citizen, and from citizenship the artisian and the slaves were excluded. The mechanical arts were held in bad repute; and Aristotle declares that "they render the body and soul or intellect of free persons unfit for the exercise and practice of virtue" (Politics, V, 1337). A still more serious limitation, affecting not only their concept of human dignity, but their regard for human life as well, consisted in the exposure of children. This was practised at Sparta by the public authority, which destroyed the child that was unfit for the service of the State; while at Athens the fate of his offspring was committed to the father and might be decided in accordance with purely personal interests. The mother's position was not much better than it had been in the Orient. Women were generally regarded as inferior beings, "impotent for good, but clever contrivers of all evil" (Euripdes, Medea, 406). At best she was a means to an end, the bearing of children and the care of the household; her education consequently was of the scantiest sort. The only exceptions were the hetaerae, i.e. the women who were outside the home circle and who with greater freedom of living combined higher culture than the legitimate wife could hope for. Under such circumstances marriage implied for woman a lowering of personal worth that was in marked contrast with the ideals set up for the education of men.

These ideals, again, underwent a decided change during the fifth century B.C. In one respect at least it was a change for the better; it extended the rights of citizenship. The constitution of Solon was set aside and that of Clisthenes adopted in its stead (509 B.C.) The democratic character of the latter, with the increase in prosperity at home and the widening of foreign relations, afforded new opportunities for individual ability and endeavour. This heightened activity, however, was not put forth in behalf of the common good, but rather for the advancement of personal interests. At the same time morality was deprived of even the outward support it had formerly drawn from religion; philosophy gave way to scepticism; and education, while it became more intellectual, laid emphasis on form rather than on content. The most influential teachers were the Sophists, who supplied the growing demand for instruction in the art of public discussion and offered information on every sort of subject. Developing in practical directions the principle that "man is the measure of all things", they carried individualism to the extreme of subjectivism alike in the sphere of speculative thought and in that of moral conduct. The purposes of education were correspondingly modified, and new problems arose. Now that the old standards and basis of morality had been rejected, the main question was to replace them by others in which due allowance would be made on the one hand for individuality and on the other for social needs. The answer of Socrates was: "Know thyself" and "Knowledge is virtue", i.e. a knowledge drawn from personal experience, yet possessing universal validity; and the means prescribed by him for obtaining such knowledge was his maieutics, i.e. the art of giving birth to ideas through the method of question and answer, by which he developed the power of thinking. As an intellectual discipline, this scheme had undoubted value; but it left unsolved the chief problem; how is knowledge, even of the highest kind, to be translated into action? Plato offered a twofold solution. In the Republic, setting out from his general theory that the idea alone is real, and that the good of each thing consists in harmony with the idea when it originated, he reaches the conclusion that knowledge consists in the perception of this harmony. The aim of education, therefore, is to develop knowledge of the good. So far, this scheme contains little more promise of practical results than that of Socrates. But Plato adds that society is to be ruled by those who attain to this knowledge, i.e. by the philosophers; the other two classes, soldiers, and artisans, are subordinate, yet each individual being asigned to the class for which his abilities fit him, reaches the highest self-development and contributes his share to the social weal. In the Laws, Plato attempts to revise and combine certain elements of the Spartan and of the Athenian system but this reactionary scheme met with no success.

This problem, finally, was taken up by Aristotle in the Ethics and the Politics. As in his philosophy, so in his educational theory, he departs from Plato's teaching. The goal for the individual as well as for society is happiness: "What we have to aim at is for the happiness of each citizen, and happiness consists in a complete activity and practice of virtue" (Politics, IV). More precisely, happiness is "the conscious activity of the highest part of man according to the law of his own excellence, not unaccompanied by adequate, external conditions." Merely to know the good does not constitute virtue; this knowledge must issue in practice the goodness of the intellect (knowledge of universal truth) must be combined with goodness of action. The three things which make men good and virtuous -- nature, habit, and reason --

must be in harmony with one another (for they do not always agree); men do many things against habit and nature, if reason persuades them that they ought. We have already determined what natures are likely to be most easily moulded by the hands of the legislator. All else is the work of education; we learn some things by habit and some by instruction. (Politics, Bk. VII)

Education, however, must always be adapted to the peculiar character of the State: "The citizen should be moulded to suit the form of government under which he lives" (ibid., VIII). And again, "It is right that the citizens should possess a capacity for affairs and for war, but still more for the enjoyment of peace or leisure; right that they should be capable of such actions as are indispensable and salutary, but still more of such as are moral per se. It is with a view to these objects, then, that they should be educated while they are still children, and at all other ages, till they pass beyond the need of education" (ibid., IV). "Neither must we suppose that any one of the citizens belongs to himself, for they all belong to the State, and are each of them a part of the State, and the care of each part is inseperable from the care of the whole" (ibid., VII).

In the theories of Plato and Aristotle are found the highest reaches of hellenic thought regarding the prupose and nature of education. Each of these great thinkers established schools of philosophy, and each has profoundly affected the thought of all subsequent time, yet neither succeeded in providing an education sound and permanent enought to avert the moral and political downfall of the nation. The diffusion of Greek thought and culture throughout the world by conquest and colonization was no remedy for the evils which sprang from an exaggerated individualism. Once the idea wa accepted that each man is his own standard of conduct, neither brilliancy of literary production nor fineness of philosophic speculation could prevent the decay of patriotism, and of a virtue which had never looked higher than the State for its sanction. Aristotle himself, at the close of his Ethics, points out the radical difficulty:

Now if arguments and theories were able by themselves to make people good, they would, in the words of Theognis, be entitled to receive high and great rewards, and it is with theories that we should have to provide ourselves. But the truth apparently is that, though they are strong enough to encourage and stimulate young men of liberal minds, though they are able to inspire with goodness a character that is naurally noble and sincerely loves the beautiful, they are incapable of converting the mass of men to goodness and beauty of character.

No such "conversion" was aimed at by the Sophists. Appealing to the natural tendencies of the individual, they developed a spirit of selfishness which in turn broke out in discord, thus opening the way for the conquest of Greece by Roman arms.

THE ROMANS

In striking contrast with the Greek character, that of the Romans was practical, utilitarian, grave, austere. Their religion was serious, and it permeated their whole life, hallowing all its relations. The family, especially, was far more sacred than in Sparta or Athens, and the position of woman as wife and mother more exalted and influential. Still, as with the Greeks, the power of the father over the life of his child -- patria potestas -- was absolute, and, in the earlier period at least, the exposure of children was a common practice. In fact the laws of the Twelve Tables provided for the immediate destruction of deformed offspring and gave the father, during the whole life of his children, the right to imprison, sell, or slay them. Subsequently, however, a check was placed on such practices. The ideal at which the Roman aimed was neither harmony nor happiness, but the performance of duty and the maintenance of his rights. Yet this ideal was to be realized through service to the State. Deep as was the family feeling, it was always subordinate to devotion to the public weal. "Parents are dear," said Cicero, "and children and kindred, but all loves are bound up in the love of our common country" (DeOfficiis, I, 17). Education therefore was essentially a preparation for civic duty. "The children of the Romans are brought up that they may one day be able to be of service to the fatherland, and one must accordingly instruct them in the customs of the State and in the institutions of their ancestors. The fatherland has produced and brought us up that we may devote to its use the finest capacitites of our mind, talent, and understanding. Therefore we must learn those arts whereby we may be of greatest service to the State; for that I hold to be the highest wisdom and virtue."

These words express, at any rate, the spirit of the early Roman education. The home was the early school, and the parents the only teachers. Of scientific and aesthetic training there was little or none. To learn the Laws of the Twelve Tables, to become familiar with the lives of the men who had made Rome great and to copy the virtues which he saw in the father were the chief endeavour of the boy and youth. Thus the moral element predominated, and virtues of a practical sort were inculcated: first of all pietas, obedience to parents and to the gods: then prudence, fair dealing, courage, reverence, firmness, and earnestness or philisophical reasoning, but through the imitation of worthy models and, as far as possible, of living and concrete examples. Vitæ discimus, "We learn for life," said Seneca; and this phrase sums up the whole purpose of Roman education. In the course of time, elementary schools (ludi) were opened, but they were conducted by private teachers and were supplemented to the home instruction. About the middle of the third century B.C. foreign influence began to make themselves felt. The works of the Greeks translated into Latin, Greek teachers were introduced and schools established in which the educational characteristics of the Greeks reappeared. Under the direction of the literatus and the grammaticus education took on a literary character, while in the school of the rhetor the art of oratory was carefully cultivated. The importance which the Romans attached to eloquence is clearly shown by Cicero in his "De Oratore" and by Quintilian in his "Institutes"; to produce the orator became eventually the chief end of education. Quintilian's work, moreover, is the principal contribution to educational theory produced in Rome. The hellenizing process was a gradual one. The vigorous Roman character yielded but slowly to the intellectualism of the Greeks, and when the latter finally triumphed, far-reaching changes had come about in Roman society government, and life. Whatever the causes of decline -- political, economic, or moral -- they could not be stayed by the imported refinement of Greek thought and practice. Nevertheless, pagan education as a whole, with its ideals, successes, and failures, has a profound significance. It was the practical, that the world has known. It pursued in turn the ideals that appeal most strongly to the human mind. It engaged the thought of the greatest philosophers and the action of the wisest legislators. Art, science, and literature were placed at its service, and the mighty influence of the State was exerted in its behalf. In itself, therefore, and in its results, it shows how much and how little human reason can accomplish when it seeks no guidance higher than itself and strives for no purposes other than those which find, or may find, their realization in the present phase of existence.

THE JEWS

Among the pre-Christian peoples the Jews occupy a unique position. As the recipients and custodians of Divine revelation, their conception of life and morality were far above those of the Gentiles. God manifested Himself to them directly as a Person, a Spirit, and an ethical Being, guiding them by His providence, making known to them His will, and prescribing the minutest details of life and religious practice. Throughout the Old Testament, God appears as the teacher of His chosen people. He sets before them a standard of righteousness which in none other than Himself: "You shall be holy, because I am holy" (Levit., xi, 46). Through Moses and the Prophets He gives them His Commandments and the promises of a Messiah to come. But He also placed upon them the duty of instructing their children.

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with they whole strength. And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thy heart: and thou shalt tell them to thy children, and thou shalt meditate upon them sitting in thy house, and walking on thy journey, sleeping and rising. (Deut., vi, 4-7)

In accordance with this injunction, education, at least in the earlier period, was given chiefly in the home. Jewish family life, indeed, far surpassed that of the Gentiles in the purity of its relations, in the position it secured to woman, and in the care which it bestowed on children, who were regarded as a blessing vouchsafed by God and destined for His service by fidelity to the Divine law. An important function of the synagogue also was the instruction of youth, which was committed to the scribes and the doctors. Schools, as such, came into existence only in the later period, and even then the teaching was permeated by religion. Though the Old Testament, contains no theory of education in the stricter sense, it abounds in maxims and principles which are all the more weighty because they are inspired by Divine wisdom and because they have a practical bearing upon life. God Himself showed the dignity of the teacher's office when he declared: "They that are learned shall shine as the brightness of the firmament: and they that instruct many to justice, as stars for all eternity" (Dan., xii, 3). In the light, however, of a more perfect revelation, it is clear that God's dealings with Israel had an ultimate purpose which was to be realized "in the fullness of time." Not only the utterances of the Prophets, but many signal events in the history of the Jews and many of their ritual observances were types of the Messiah; as St. Paul says, "All these things happened to them in figure" (I Cor., x, 11), and "The law was our pedagogue in Christ" (Gal., iii, 24). As the Supreme Teacher of mankind, God, while imparting to them the truth which they presently needed, also prepared the way for the greater truths of the Gospel.

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

As in many other respects so for the work of education, the advent of Christianity is the most important epoch in the history of mankind. Not only does the Christian conception of life differ radically from the pagan view, not only does the Christian teaching impart a new sort of knowledge and lay down a new principle of action, but Christianity, moreover, supplies the effectual means of making its ideals actual and of carrying its precepts into practice. Through all vicissitudes of conflict and adjustment, of changing civilizations and varying opinions, in spite even of the shortcomings of its own adherents, Christianity has steadfastly held up before men the life and the lessons of its Divine Founder.

Jesus Christ as Teacher

"God who, at sundry-times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by his Son" (Heb., i, 1-2). This communication through the God-Man was to reveal the true way of living: "The grace of God our Saviour hath appeared to all men; instructing us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly, and justly, and godly in this world, looking for the blessed hope and coming of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (Titus, ii 11, 12). Of Himself and His mission Christ declared, "I am come a light into the world; that whosoever believeth in me, may not remain in darkness" (John, xii, 46); and again, "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth" (John, xviii, 37). The knowledge which He came to impart was no mere intellectual possession or theory: "I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly" (John, x, 10). He taught therefore, as one "having authority"; He insisted that His heirs should believe the truths which He taught, even though these might seem to be "hard sayings." His doctrines, indeed, made no appeal either to pride of intellect or to selfishness or to passion. For the most part, as in the Sermon on the Mount, they were dramatically opposed to the maxims that had obtained in the pagan world. They were, in the highest sense, supernatural, not only in proposing eternal life as the ultimate goal of man's existence and action, but also in enjoining the denial of self as the chief requisite for attaining that destiny. Service to the neighboor was insisted upon, but this was to be rendered in the spirit of love, the new commandments which Christ gave (John, xiii, 34). Faithfulness also to civic duty was required, but the sanction which imparted force to such obligation was man's elevation to a higher citizenship in the Kindgom of God. To strive after this and to realize it in one's earthly life, so far as possible, was the ideal to which every other good was subordinate; "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matt., vi, 33).

Truths of this kind, so far removed from the natural tendencies of human thought and desire, could be imparted only by one who embodied in himself all the qualifications of a perfect teacher. The philosophers no doubt might, and did, formulate beautiful theories regarding knowledge and virtue; but Christ alone could say to His disciples: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John, xiv, 6). And whatever worth they attached in theory to personality was of far less ideal in Christ's own Person. He could thus rightfully appeal to that imitative tendency which is so deeply rooted in man's nature and from which so much is expected in modern education. The axiom, also, that we learn by doing and that knowledge gets its full value only when it issues in action, finds its best exemplification in Christ's dealings with His disciples. He "began to do and to teach" (Acts, i, 1). In His miracles he gave evidence of His power over all nature and therefore of His authority to require faith in His words: "The works themselves which I do give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me" (John, v, 36). To His disciples, when they hesitated or were slow to realize that the Father abided in Him, the answer was given: "Otherwise believe for the very works' sake" (xiv, 12). What He demanded in turn was no mere outward profession of faith or loyalty: "Not every one that saith to me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doth the will of my Father" (Matt., vii, 21).

The necessity of manifesting belief through action is constantly pointed out both in the literal teaching of Christ and in His parables. These, again, illustrate His practical wisdom as a teacher. They were drawn from objects and circumstances with which His hearers were familiar. In each instance they were adapted to the manner of thinking suggested by the local surroundings and the customs of the people; and they were often called forth by an incident that seemed unimportant or by a question which was asked now by His followers and again by His tireless enemies. Thus the simplest things of nature -- the vine, the lily, the fig-tree, the birds of the air, and the grass of the field -- were made to yield lessons of the deepest moral significance. His aim wa not to adorn His own discorse, but rather to bring its content into the minds of his hearers more vividly, and to secure for it greater permanence by associating in their thought some supernatural truth with the facts of daily experience. Sensory perception, memory, and imagination were thus developed to form a mental setting for the great truths of the Kindgom. The same principle found its appreciation in the institution of the sacraments whereby natural elements are made the outward signs of inward grace. As St. John Chrysostom aptly says,

If you were incorporeal, he would have bestowed on you incorporeal gifts in their bare reality; but because the soul is bound up with the body, he gives you intelligible things under sensible forms. (Homilia, lx, as populum Antioch)

In fact the whole teaching of Christ is the clearest proof of the principle that education must adapt itself in method and practice to the needs of those who are to be taught. In accordance with this principle He prepared the minds of His followers beforehand for the institution of the Holy Eucharist for His own death, and for the coming of the Holy Ghost (John, vi, xiv, xv); and he even reserved certain truths to be made known by the Paraclete: "I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth" (xvi, 12, 13). Thus the completion of His work as a teacher is left not to human conjecture or speculation, nor to the theories of philosophical schools, but to the Spirit of God Himself. This of course was best realized by those who were nearest to Him; yet even those of the Jews who were not among the Apostles, but were, like Nicodemus, disposed to judge fairly, confessed His superiority: "We know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him" (John, iii, 2).

The Aim of Christian Education

Had Christ's mission ended when He quitted the earth, He would still have been in word and work the ideal teacher, and would have influenced for all time the education of mankind so far as its ultimate aims and basic principles are concerned. But as a matter of fact, He made ample provision for the perpetuatuion of His work by training a select body of men who for three years were constantly under His direction and were thoroughly imbued with His spirit. To these Apostles, moreover He gave the command: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations . . . . and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt., xxvii, 19, 20). These words are the charter of the Christian Church as a teaching institution. While they refer directly to the doctrine of salvation, and therefore to the imparting of religious truth, they nevertheless, or rather by the very nature of that truth and its consequences for life, carry with them the obligation of insisting on certain principles and maintaining certain characterisitcs which have a decisive bearing on all educational problems.

1. The truth of Christianity is to be made known to all men. It is not confined to any one race or nation or class, nor is it to be the exclusive possession of highly gifted minds. This characteristic of universality is in plain contrast with the highest conceptions of the pagan world. The cultured Greek had only contempt for the barbarian, and the Roman looked upon outside nations a subjects to be governed rather than as people to be taught. But at Athens also and at Rome there was the distinction between free citizens and slaves, in consequence of which the latter were excluded from the benefits of education. As against these narrow limitations Christ charged His apostles to "teach all men"; and St. Paul, in the same spirit, professes himself a debtor to all men, Greeks and barbarians, the wise and the unwise alike. All, in fact, were to be dealt with as children of the same Heavenly Father and heirs of the Kingdom of God. In respect of these supernatural perogatives, the distinctions which had hitherto prevailed were set aside: Christianity appeared as one vast school with mankind at large for its disciples.

2. The commission given to the Apostles was not to expire with them; it was to remain in force "all days, even to the consummation of the world." Perpetuity, therefore, is an essential feature in the educational work of Christianity. The institution of paganism had indeed flourished and advanced from phase to phase of development, but they did not contain the element of enduring vitality. In the higher departments of learning, as in philosophy, school had followed school into vigour and into decay. And in education itself, one ideal after another had been put forward only to be displaced. Christianity, on the contrary, while it could never become a rigid system, held up to mankind certain unchangeable truths which should serve as criteria for determining the value of every fundamental theroy of life and of education. By insisting, especially, that man's destiny was to be attained, not in any form of temporal service or success but in union with God, it proposed an ideal which should be valid for all time and amid all the variations of human thought and endeavour. That such changes would inevitably come to pass, Christ, without doubt, foresaw. In view of these, a merely human teacher would have provided for the stability of his work by devices which would, if successful, have attested his foresight, or shrewdness, or knowledge of human nature. But Christ s guarantee to the Apostles is at once simpler and surer: "Behold I am with you all days." The task of instructing the world in Christian truth would have been impossible but for this permanent abiding of Christ with His appointed teachers. On the other hand, once the force of His promise is realized, the significance of Christianity as a perpetual institution becomes evident: it means that Christ, Himself through a visible agency was to continue for all time the work He began during His earthly life as Teacher of the human race.

3. It has already been pointed out that some of the pagan peoples, and notably the Greeks, had attained a very high conception of personality; and it has also been shown that this conception was by no means perfect. The teaching of Christianity in this respect is so far superior to any other that if a single element could be designated as fundamental in Christian education it would be the emphasis which it lays on the worth of the individual. In the first place, Christianity had its origin, not in any abstract speculation as to goodness or virtue, but in the actual, concrete life of a Person who was absolutely perfect. It was not, then, obliged to cast about for the ideal man, or to present a theory as to what that ideal might possibly be: it passed the most exalted ideas of human wisdom. In Christ first appeared the full dignity of human nature through its elevation personal union with the Word of God; and in Him, as never before or since, were manifest those traits which furnish the noblest models for imitation.

Christianity, furthermore, elevated human personality by the value it set upon each human soul as created by God and destined for eternal life. The State is no longer the supreme arbiter, nor is service to the public weal the ultimate standard. These, it is true within their legitimate sphere have just claims upon the individual. Christianity by no means teaches that such claims can be disgregarded or the corresponding duties neglected, but rather that the discharge of all social and civic obligations will be more thorough when subordianted to, and inspired by, fidelity in the duties that man owes to God. While the value of personality is thus enhanced, the sense of responsibility is correspondingly increased; so that the freer development of the person is not allowed to culminate in selfishness nor in that extreme individualism which is a threat to social organization.

4. From these principles Christianity drew consequences which were totally at variance with the thought and practice of paganism. The position of woman was lifted at once to a higher plane; she ceased to be a chattel, or a mere instrument of passion, and became the equal of man, with the same personal worth and the same eternal destiny. Marriage was no longer a union entered into through caprice or convention, but an indissoluble bond involving mutual rights and duties. Moreover, it was raised to the dignity of a sacrament, which not only sanctified the marital relation and its purposes, but also conferred the graces needful for the due fulfilment of its obligations. The whole meaning of the family was thus transformed. Parental authority was indeed maintained, but such an exercise of the patria potestas as the destruction or the exposure of children could not have been tolerated once it was realized that the child's personality also is sacred, and that parents are responsible not simply to the State, but also to God, for the proper education of their offspring. Christianity, moreover, laid upon the child the duty of respecting and obeying his parents, not out of servile fear or hard necessity, but through a spirit of reverence and filial love. The ties of home-life were thereby strengthened, and the whole work of education took on a new character because it was consecrated in its very source by religion.

5. In respect of its content Christianity opened up to the human mind wide realms of truth which unaided reason could not possibly have attained, and which nevertheless are of far deeper import for life than the most learned speculations of pagan thought. Upon those truths, also, which the philosophers had but vaguely discerned, or about which they had remained in doubt, it shed a new light. There could be no further questioning, for the Christian, as to the existence of a personal God, the reality of His providence, the immortality of the soul, the freedom of the will, and the resulting accountability of man to Divine Justice. Above all, the nature of the moral order was set forth in unmistakable terms. Christianity insisted that morality was not mere outward conformity to custom or law, but the inner rectitude of the will, that aesthetic refinement was of far less consequence than purity of heart, and that love of the neighbour as proven in deed, not personal gain or advantage, was the true norm of human relationships. That such a conception of life, with its emphasis on really spiritual aims, must lead to the formation of educational ideals unknown to the pagan world, is obvious. But on the other hand it would be wrong to infer that Christianity, in its "other worldliness", reduces or neglects the values of the present life. What it consistently maintains is, that life here gets it highest value by serving as a preparation for the life to come. The question is not whether one should live now without any regard to the future or look forward to the future with no concern for the present; but rather how one should profit by the opportunities of this life in such wise as as to secure the other. The problems, then, is one of establishing proportions, i.e. of determining values according to the standard of man's eternal destiny. When education is defined as "preparation for complete living" (Herbert Spencer), the Christian can take no objection to the words as they stand; but he will insist that no living can be "complete" which leaves out of consideration the ultimate purpose of life, and hence that no education really "prepares" which thwarts that purpose or sets it aside. It is just this completeness -- in teaching all men in harmonizing all truths, in elevating all relationships, and in leading the individual soul back to the Creator -- that forms the essential characteristic of Christianity as an educational influence.

THE EDUCATIONAL WORK OF THE CHURCH

Next in importance to Christ's personal teaching was the establishment of a teaching body whose mission was identical with His own: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John, xx, 21); and "He that heareth you, heareth me" (Luke, x, 16). He was not content with proclaiming once for all the truths of the Gospel, nor did He leave its wider dissemination to individual enthusiasm or initiative; He founded a Church to carry on His work. The spread of His doctrine was entrusted, not to books, nor to schools of philosophy, nor to the governments of the world, but to an organization that spoke in His name and with his authority. No other body of teachers ever undertook so vast a work, and no other ever accomplished so much for education in the highest sense. Apart from the preaching of the Apostles, the earliest form of Christian instruction was that given to the catechumens (q.v.) in preparation for baptism. Its object was twofold: to impart a knowledge of Christian truth, and to train the candidate in the practice of religion. It was conducted by the bishop and, as the number of catechumens increased, by priests, deacons, and other clerics. Until the third century this mode of instruction was an important adjunct to the Apostolate; but in the fifth and sixth centuries it was gradually replaced by private instruction of the converts, who were then less numerous, and by the training given in other schools to those who had been baptized in infancy. The catechumenal schools, however, gave expression to the spirit which was to animate all subsequent Christian education: they were open to every one who accepted the faith, and they united religious instruction with moral discipline. The "catechetical" schools, also under the bishop's supervision, prepared young clerics for the priesthood. The courses of study included philosophy and theology, and naturally took on an apologetic character in defense of Christian truth against the attacks of pagan learning. One of the oldest of these schools was at the Lateran in Rome; the most famous was that of Alexandria (see CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE).

In addition to this formal instruction, the Church from the beginning carried on through her worship and educational work embodying the deepest and soundest psychological principles. The ritual at first was of necessity simple; but as the Church was allowed a larger freedom, and her worship passsed from the catacombs to the basilica, statelier forms were introduced; yet their essential purpose was the same. The Mass, which has always been the central liturgical function, appeals to the mind through the medium of sense. It combines light and colour and sound, the action of the priest, and the dramatic movement that fills the sanctuary, especially in the more solemn service. Beneath these outward forms lies the inner meaning. The altar itself, in every detail, is full of a symbolism that brings vividly to mind the life and personality of Christ, the work of redemption, and the enduring sacrifice of the Cross. In due proportion, each item fo the liturgy conveys a lesson through eye and ear to the highest faculties of the soul. Sense, memory, imagination, and feeling are thus aroused, not simply as aesthetic activities, but as a support of intellect and will which thereupon issue in adoration and thanksgiving for the "mystery of faith." On the other hand, the liturgy has always included in its purpose the participation of the faithful, and hence it prescribes the response of the people to the prayers at the altar, the chanting of certain portions of the service, bodily postures and movements in keeping with the various phases of the sacred rite. The faithful are not merely bystanders or onlookers; they are not to maintain a passive, receptive attitude, but rather to give active expression to the religious thought and feeling aroused in them. This is especially evident in the sacramental system. While each of the sacraments is a sign to be perceived, it is also a source of grace to be received; and the reception involves in each case a series of actions which manifest the faith and disposition of the recipent. Moreover, each sacrament is adapted to some particular need, and the whole system for sacraments, from baptism to extreme unction, builds up the spiritual life by processes of cleansing, strengthening, nourishing, and healing, which parallel the stage and requirements of organic growth.

In a larger way, also, the liturgical year, as it commemorates the principal events in the life of Christ, brings into Christian worship a variety which affects to some extent both the details of the liturgy itself and the religious feelings which it inspires -- from the joy of Christmas to the triumph of Easter and Pentecost. For the due observance of the greater festivals the Church provides, as in Advent and Lent, by seasons of preparation. The Old Law with its types foreshadowed the New; the Baptist announce the Messiah; Christ himself prepared His disciples beforehand for the mystery of the Eucharist, for His death, and for the coming of the Holy Ghost. The Church, following the same practice arouses in the mind of the faithful those thoughts and feelings which form an apperceptive preparation for the central mysteries of faith and their proper observance at appointed times. Along with these greater solemnities come year by year the commemorations of the Christian heroes, the men and women who have walked in the footsteps of Christ, laboured for the spread of His kingdom, or even shed their blood for His sake. These are held up as models to be imitated, as realizations more or less perfect of the sublime ideal which is Christ Himself. And among the saints the foremost place is given to Mary the Mother of Christ, the ideal of Christian womanhood, to whom the Son of God was "subject" in the home at Nazareth. Each festival in her honour is at once an exhortation to copy her virtues and an evidence of the high station to which woman was raised by Christianity. The liturgy, then, is an application on a large scale of those principles which underlie all real teaching -- appeal to the senses, association, apperpecption, expression, and imitation. The Church did not began by theorizing about these, nor did she wait for a psychological analysis to determine their value. Instructed by her founder, she simply incorporated in her liturgy those elements which were best fitted to teach men the truth and lead them to act in conformity with the Gospel. It is none the less significant that modern education is adopting for its own purposes, i.e. the teaching of secular subjects, the psychological principles which the Church from the beginning has put into practice.

While the Church, in her interior life and in the execution of her mission, gave proof of her vitality and of her ability to teach manking, she necessarily came into contact with influences and practices which were the legacy of paganism. In point of religious belief there was, of course, a clean breach between the polytheism of Athens and Rome and the doctrines of Christianity. But philosophy and literature were factors which had to be counted with as well as the educational system, whcih was still largely under pagan control. Schools had been opened by converts who were imbued with the ideas of Greek philosophy -- by Justin at Rome, and Aristides at Athens; while, at Alexandria, Clement and Origen enjoyed the highest repute. These men regarded philosophy as a means of guiding reason to faith, and of defending that faith against the attacks of paganism. Others again, like Tertullian, condemned philosophy outright as something with which the Christian could have nothing to do. In regard to the pagan classics the conflict of opinion was even sharper. Some of the greatest theologians and Fathers, like St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Gregory of Nyssa, had studied the classics under pagan masters and were therefore in favour of sending Christian youths to non-Christian schools on the ground that literary studies would enable them the better to defend their religion. At the same time these Fathers would not permit a Christian to teach in such schools lest he should be obliged to take part in idolatrous practices. Tertullian (de Idolatriâ, c. x) insists on the same distinction, the teacher, he says, by reason of his authority, becomes in a way the "catechist of demons"; the pupil, imbued with Christian faith, profits by the letter of classical instruction, but rejects its false doctrine and holds aloof from the superstitious practices which the teacher can hardly avoid. Such a distinction was naturally the source of difficulties and gave rise to much discussion. The situation was not remedied by the edict of Julian the Apostate, forbidding the Christians to teach; though this called forth some protests and suggested the creation of a Christian literature based on classical models of style, nothing decisive resulted. On the other hand, fear of the corrupting influence of pagan literature had more and more alienated Christians from such studies; and it is not surprising to find among the opponents of the classics such men as St John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St Jerome, and St. Augustine. Though they had received a thorough classical education, and though they appreciated fully the worth of the pagan authors, their final attitude was adverse to the study of pagan literature. Apart from many controverted points in this subject, it is clear that the Fathers, at a time when the enviroment of the Church was still pagan, were far more anxious for the purity of faith and morals than for the cultivation of literature. In later ages, as the danger of contamination grew less, classical studies were revived and encouraged by the Church; but their value has more than once been questioned (see Lalanne, Influence des Pères de l'Englise sur l'éducation publique, Paris 1850).

Meanwhile the work of education was not neglected. If the Empire gave way before barbarian invasion, the Church found a new field of activity among the vigourous races of the North. To these she brought not only Christianity and civilization, but also the best elements of classical culture. Through her missionaries she became the teacher of Germany and France, of England and Ireland. The task was a difficult one, and its accomplisment was marked by many vicissitudes of temporary failure and hard-won success. At times, indeed, it would seem that the desire for learning had quite disappeared even among those for whom the acquisition of knowledge was a sacred obligation. Yet these drawbacks only served to stimulate the zeal of ecclesiastical and civil rulers in behalf of a more thorough and systematic education. Thus the salient feature of the Middle Ages is the co-operation of Church and State for the development of schools. Theodoric in Italy, Alfred in England, and Charlemagne in the Frankish Kingdom are illustrious examples of princes who joined their authority with that of bishops and councils to secure adequate instrction for clergy and people. Among churchmen it suffices to mention Chrodegand of Metz, Alcuin, St. Bede, boethius, and Cassiodorus (see the several articles). As a result of their efforts, education was provided for the clergy in the cathedral schools under the direct supervision of the bishop and for the laity in parochial schools to which all had access. In the curriculum, religion held the first place; other subjects were few and elementary, comprising at best the trivium and quadrivium (see THE SEVEN LIBERAL ARTS). But the significance of this education lies not so much in its content as in the fact that it was the means of arousing a love of learning among peoples that had just emerged from barbarism, and of laying the foundations of Western culture and science. This history of education records no greater undertaking; for the task was not one of improving or perfecting, but of creating and had not the Church gone vigorously about her work, modern civilization would have been retarded for centuries. (See SCHOOLS; MIDDLE AGES.)

One of the chief factors in this progress was monasticism. The Benedictine monasteries especially were homes of study and depositories of the ancient learning. Not only sympathetic writers, like Montalembert, but those also who are more critical, acknowledge the service which the monks rendered to education.

In those restless ages of rude culture, of constant warfare, of perpetual lawlessness and the rule of might, monasticism offered the one opportunity for a life of repose, of contemplation, and of that leisure and relief from the ordinary vulgar but necessary duties of life essential to the student . . . . Thus it happened that the monasteries were the sole schools for teaching; they offered the only professional training; they were the only universities of research; they alone served as publishing houses for the multiplication of books; they were the only libraries for the preservation of learning; they produced the only scholars; they were the sole educational institutions of this period. (Paul Monroe, A Text-Book in the History of Education, New York, 1907, p. 255)

In addition to their prescribed studies, the monks were constantly occupied in copying the classic texts.

While the Greek classics owed their safe preservation to the libraries of Constantinople and to the monasteries of the East, it is primarily to the monasteries of the West that we are indebted for the survival of the Latin classics. (Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship, 2nd ed. Cambridge, 1906, p. 617)

The specific work of education was carried on in the monastery school and was intended primarily for the novices. In some cases, however, a schola exterior, or outer school was added for lay students and for aspirants to the secular priesthood. The course of study included, besides the seven liberal arts, the reading of Latin authors and the music of the Church. Finally, through their annals and chronicles, the monks provided a rich store of information concerning medieval life, which is invaluable to the historian of that period. The Chief importance, however, of the monastic schools is found in the fact that they were conducted by an organized body of teachers who had withdrawn from the world and devoted their lives under the guidance of religion, to literary pursuits and educational work. The same Christianity that had sanctified the family now gave to the profession of teacher a sacredness and a dignity which made teaching itself a noble vocation.

Two other movements form the climax of the Church's activity during the Middle Ages. The development of Scholasticism meant the revival of Greek philosophy, and in particular of Aristotle; but it also meant that philosophy was now to serve the cause of Christian truth. Men of faith and learning like Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, far from dreading or scorning the products of Greek thought, sought to make them the rational basis of belief. A synthesis was thus effected between the highest speculation of the pagan world and the teachings of theology. Scholasticism, moreover, was a distinct advance in the work of education; it was an intellectual training in method, in systematic thought, in severe logical reasoning, and in accuracy of statement. But taken as a whole, it furnished a great object-lesson, the purport of which was that, for the keenest intellect, the findings of reason and the truths of Revelation could be harmonized. Having used the subtilities of Greek thought to sharpen the student's mind, the Church thereupon presented to him her dogmas without the least fear of contradiction. She thus united in a consistent whole whatever was best in pagan science and culture with the doctrine entrusted to her by Christ. If education be rightly defined as "the transmission of our intellectual and spiritual inheritance" (Butler), this definition is fully exemplified in the work of the Church during the Middle Ages.

The same synthetic spirit took concrete form in the universities (q.v.). In founding these the popes and the secular rulers co-operated; in university teaching all the then known branches of science were represented; the student body comprised all classes, laymen and clerics, seculars and religious; and the diploma conferred was an authorization to teach everywhere. The university was thus, in the educational sphere, the highest expression of that completeness which had all along characterized the teaching of the Church; and the spirit of inquiry which animated the medieval university remains, in spite of other modification, the essential element in the university of modern times. The changes which have since taken place have for the most part resulted in separating those elements which the Church had built into a harmonious unity. As Protestantism by rejecting the principle of authority brought about innumerable divisions in belief, so it led the way to rupture between Church and state in the work of education. The Renaissance in its extreme forms ranked pagan culture above everything else; and the Reformation in its fundamental tenet went beyond the individualism which led to the decline of Greek education. Once the schools were secularized, they fell readily under influences which transformed ideals, systems, and methods. Philosophy detached from theology formulated new theories of life and its values, that moved, at first slowly then more rapidly away from the positive teachings of Christianity. Science in turn cast off its allegiance to philosopy and finally proclaimed itself the only sort of knowledge worth seeking. The most serious practical result was the separation of moral and religious from purely intellectual education -- a result which was due in part to religious differences and political changes, but also in large part to erroneous views concerning the nature and need of moral training. Such views again are in general derived from the denial, explicit or implicit, of the supernatural order and of its meaning for human life in its relations to God; so that, during three centuries past, the main endeavour outside the Catholic Church has been to establish education on a purely naturalistic basis, whether this be aesthetic culture or scientific knowledge, individual perfection or social service. In its earlier stages Protestantism, which laid so much stress on faith, could not consistently have sanctioned an education from which religious ideals were eliminated. But according a its principles worked out to their legitimate consquences, it became less and less capable of opposing the naturalistic movement. The Catholic Church has thus been obliged to carry on, with little or no help from other Christian bodies, the struggle in behalf of those truths on which Christianity is founded; and her educational work during the modern period may be described in general terms as the steadfast maintenance of the union between the natural and the supernatural.

From a human point of view the Church was under many disadvantages. The loss of the universities, the confiscation of monastic and other ecclesiatical property, and the opposition of various governments seemed to make her task hopeless. Yet these difficulties only served to call forth new manifestations of her vitality. The Council of Trent gave the impulse by decreeing that a more thorough education of the clergy should be secured through the seminaries (q.v.) and by urging upon bishops and priests the duty of building up the parochial schools. Similar measures were adopted by provincial and diocesan symbols throughout Europe. Then came the religious orders founded for the express purpose of education Catholic youth. (See especially INSTITUTE OF THE BROTHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS; SOCIETY OF JESUS; ORATORIANS.) And to these finally must be added the numerous congregations of women who devoted their lives to the Christian training of girls. However different in organization and method, these institutions had for their common purpose the spread of religious truth along with secular knowledge among all classes. Thus there arose, by force of circumstances, a distinctly Catholic system of education, including parish schools, academics, colleges, and a certain number of universities which had remained under the control of the Church were founded anew by the Holy See. It is especially the parochial school that has served in recent times as an essentail factor in the work of religion. In some countries, e.g. Canada, it has received support from the Government; in others, as in the United States, it is maintained by voluntary contributions. As Catholics have also to pay their share of taxes for the public school system they are under a double burden; but this very hardship has only served to place in clearer light their practical loyalty to the principles on which Catholic education is based. In fact, the whole parochial school movement during the nineteenth century forms one of the most remarkable chapters in the history of education. It proves on one side that neither loss of the State's co-operation nor lack of material resources can weaken the determination of the Church to carry on her educational work; and on the other side it shows what faith and devotional on the part of parents, clergy, and teachers can accomoplish where the interests of religion are at stake. (See SCHOOLS.) As this attitude and this action of Catholics place them in a position which is not always rightly understood, it may be useful to present here a statement of the principles on which the Church has based her course in the past, and to which she adheres unswervingly at the present time when the problems of education are the subject of so much discussion and the cause of agitation in various directions. The Catholic position may be outlined as follows:

• Intellectual education must not be separated from moral and religious education. To impart knowledge or to develop mental efficiency without building up moral character is not only contrary to psychological law, which requires that all the faculties should be trained but is also fatal both to the individual and to society. No amount of intellectual attainment or culture can serve as a substitute for virtue; on the contrary, the more thorough intellectual education becomes, the greater is the need for sound moral training.
• Religion should be an essential part of education; it should form not merely an adjunct to instruction in other subjects, but the centre about which these are grouped and the spirit by which they are permeated. the study of nature without any reference to God, or of human ideal with no mention of Jesus Christ, or of human legislation without Divine law is at best a one-sided education. The fact that religious truth finds no place in the curriculum is, of itself, and apart from any open negation of that truth, sufficient to warp the pupil's mind in such a way and to such an extent that he will feel little concern in his school-days or later for religion in any form; and this result is the more likely to ensue when the curriculum is made to include everything that is worth knowing except the one subject which is of chief importance.
• Sound moral instruction is impossible apart from religious education. The child may be drilled in certain desirable habits, such as neatness, courtesy, and punctuality; he may be imbued with a spirit of honour, industry, and truthfulness -- and none of this should be neglected; but if these duties towards self and neighbour are sacred, the duty towards God is immeasurably, more sacred. When it is faithfully performed, it includes and raises to a higher plane the discharge of every other obligation. Training in religion, moreover, furnishes the best motives for conduct and the noblest ideals for imitation, while it sets before the mind an adequate sanction in the holiness and justice of God. Religious education, it should be noted, is more than instruction in the dogmas of faith or the precepts of the Divine law; it is essentially a practical training in the exercises of religion, such as prayer, attendance at Divine workship, and reception of the sacraments. By these means conscience is purified, the will to do right is strengthened, and the mind is fortified to resist those temptations which, especially in the period of adolescence, threaten the gravest danger to the moral life.
• An education which unites the intellectual, moral and religious elements is the best safeguard for the home, since it places on a secure basis the various relations which the family implies. It also ensures the performance of social duties by inculcating a spirit of self-sacrifice, of obedience to law, and of Chrisitian love for the fellow-man. The most effectual preparation for the citizenship is that schooling in virtue which habituates a man to decide, to act, to oppose a movement or to further it, not with a view to personal gain nor simply in deference to public opinion, but in accordance with the standards of right that are fixed by the law of God. The welfare of the State, therefore demands that the child be trained in the practice of virtue and religion no less than in the pursuit of knowledge.
• Far from lessening the need of moral and religious training, the advance in educational methods rather emphasizes that need. Many of the so-called improvements in teaching are of passsing importance, and some are at variance with the laws of the mind. Upon their relative worth the Church does not pronounce, nor does she commit herself to any particular method provided the essentials of Christian education are secured, the Church welcomes whatever the sciences may contribute toward rendering the work of the school more efficient.
• Catholic parents are bound in conscience to provide for the education of their children, either at home or in schools of the right sort. As the bodily life of the child must be cared for, so, for still graver reasons, must the mental and moral faculties be developed. Parents, therefore, cannot take an attitude of indifference toward this essential duty nor transfer it wholly to others. They are responsible for those earliest impressions which the child receives passively, before he exercises any conscious selective imitation; and as the intellectual powers develop, the parents example is the lesson that sinks most deeply into the child's mind. They are also obliged to instruct the child according to his capacity, in the truths of religion and in the practice of religious duties, thus co-operating with the work of the Church and the school. The virtues, especially of obedience, self-control, and purity, can nowhere be inculcated so thoroughly as in the home; and without such moral education by the parents, the task of forming upright men and women and worthy citizens is difficult, and if not impossible.

That the need of moral and religious education has impressed the minds of non-Catholics also, is evident from the movement inaugurated in 1903 by the Religious Education Association in the United States, which meets annually and publishes its proceedings at Chicago. An international inquiry into the problem of moral training was started in London in 1906, and the report has been edited by Professor Sadler under the title, Moral Instruction and Training in Schools (London, 1908).

For the respective rights and duties of the church and the civil authority, see SCHOOLS; STATE.

GENERAL: MONROE, Bibl. of Education (New York, 1897); HALL AND MANSFIELD, Bibl. of Educaion (Boston, 1893); CUBERLEY, Syllabus of Lectures on the Hist. of Ed. (New York, 1902). CATHOLIC WRITERS: STÖCKL, Gesch, d. Padagogik (Mainz, 1876); DRIEG, Lehrb, d. Pagagogik (Paderborn, 1900); DRANE, Christian Schools and Scholars, 2d ed, (London, 1881); KUNZ, ed., Bibliothek d. katholischem Pagagogik, a series of monographs, biographical and expository (Frieburg, 1888-); NEWMAN, The Idea of a University (London, 1873); BROTHER AZARIAS, Essays Educational (New York, 1896); WILLMAN, Didaktik als Bildungstehre, 2d ed. (Brunswick, 1894); SPALDING, Education and the Higher Life (Chicago, 1890); IDEM, Means and End of Education (Chicago, 1895); IDEM, Religion, Agnosticism and Edcuation (Chicago, 1902); DUPANLOUP, De l'éducation (Paris, 1850); IDEM, De la haute education intellectuelle (Paris, 1855-57); GAUME, Du Catholicisme dans l'éducation (Paris, 1835); IDEM, Lettres sur le paganisme dans l'éducation (Paris, 1852); KLEUTGEN, Ueber, die alten und neuen Schulen (Munster, 1869).
NON-CATHOLIC WRITERS; K.A. SCHMID, Gesch. d. Erziehung (Stuggart, 1884-96); K. SCHMIDT, Gesch. d. Padagogik (Kothen, 1891); MONROE, Source Book of the Hist. of Ed. (New York, 1891); LAURIE, Historical Survey of Pre-Christian Ed. (New York, 1900); HARRIS, ed. International Educational Series (New York, 1857-); ROSENKRANZ, tr. BRACKETT, The Philosophy of Education (New York, 1905); BUTLER, The Meaning of Education (New York, 1905); SPENCER, Education (New York, 1895); BAIN, Education as a Science (New York, 1883); HORNE, The Philosophy of Education (New York, 1904).

E.A. PACE

The Catholic Educational Association

The Catholic Educational Association is a voluntary organization composed of Catholic educators and other persons who have an interest in the welfare of Catholic education in the United States of America. It includes several associations established to secure closer union and more active co-operation in special lines of work. The movement for unification began with an effort to establish a conference of seminary presidents and professors. A meeting called by the Right Rev. T. J. Conaty, Rector of the Catholic University of America, was held at St. Joseph's Seminary, New York, in May, 1898. A second meeting was held in Philadelphia, September, 1899, but nothing further was done until April, 1904, when, at the instance of the Right Rev. D. J. O'Connell, representatives of several seminaries met and decided to revive the conference, and to hold a meeting at St. Louis in July, 1904.

The first meeting of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities of the United States was called by the Right Rev. T. J. Conaty, and was held in Chicago in April, 1899. Annual meetings have been held since that time. The Parish School Conference was organized in Chicago in July, 1902, and it was then decided to meet at Philadelphia with the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities in 1903. At the Philadelphia meeting the Parish School Conference passed a resolution empowering a committee on organization to confer with the standing committee of the Association of Catholic Colleges and to draw up a plan of union. These three conferences met in St. Louis 12-14 July, 1904; and a committee including representatives of each proposed a constitution to be tried for one year. The report of the committee was unanimously adopted at a joint meeting of all three and the Catholic Educational Association was formed 14 July, 1904, the Right Rev. D. J. O'Connell being unanimously elected President General of the Association.

This Association held its second meeting in New York and a leading feature of the meeting was the remarkable public demonstration in Carnegie Hall at the close. The third meeting was held in Cleveland, and the fourth at Milwaukee; both were notable for the increasing attendance and for the cordial approbation of the movement given by members of the hierarchy. At the meeting in Milwaukee, July, 1907, the constitution, which had been amended each year, was finally adopted, and the executive board was authorized to take steps to incorporate the association. The fifth annual meeting was held at Cincinnati in July, 1908. There was a registration of 769 names at this convention; all sections of the country were represented, and a number of religious communities sent official delegates.

An idea of the general scope oF these gatherings may be had from the subjects treated in the papers and the addresses at this meeting. Among the former were contributions on "The Present Condition of Latin Studies in the Catholic Institutions of the United States"; "The Method of Teaching Religion"; "Necessity and Means of Promoting Vocations to Teaching Orders"; "School Library and the Child's Reading", and on the study of social questions and problems in the seminary, the present state of education and the curriculum. At the public meeting the topics were "Religious Instruction, the Basis of Morality", "The Catholic School and Social Morality", and "The Necessity of an Enlightened Conscience for the Proper Performance of Civic Duties".

The convention was the largest and most representative gathering of Catholic educators that had up to that date been held in the country. The usefulness of these meetings is now generally recognized. They give an understanding of the strength and weakness of the Catholic educational position that can be obtained in no other way. A great deal of earnest and serious work is done at them; they foster a spirit of unity and co-operation in all departments of educational work; and they inspire the educators with a greater love and devotion to their calling. The whole system of Catholic educational activity has been strengthened, unified and developed by the annual conventions of the association, and more especially was this the result of the meeting in Cincinnati.

As the understanding of the Catholic educational situation, with its difficulties and possibilities, becomes clearer, the work of the association becomes every year more definite and more practical. The slow and gradual growth of the association has given it a form of organization well suited to the development of the work. Catholic educators have a good understanding of the problems they must solve, among which are the problem of secondary education, and the problem of curriculum. Of more importance, even, than the thoroughness of educational work is the defence of the general interests of Catholic education, and the vindication of the principles on which it is based. The secular system of education is based largely on the theory that man is born for the State and that he derives his rights from the State. The socialist would have the State absorb all authority in the domain of learning and of industry, and there are many secular educators who would fain see the monopoly of education lodged in the power of the State. The Catholic system is based on the right of the parent, the right of the child, and a reasonable individualism. The resolutions of the Cincinnati convention insisted on the right of the parent in the matter of education, and the association exists for the purpose of maintaining the right of the parent and the principle of liberty of education. The Catholic Educational Association is an expression of the unity of principle that unites all Catholic educators.

The officers of the association are a president general, several vice-presidents general, a secretary general, treasurer general, and an executive board. The association includes the college, school, and seminary departments. The affairs of the association are managed by the executive board. Each department is represented in this board by its president and two other members elected by the department. Each department regulates its own affairs, and each may organize sections for the more special work in which its members are interested. In the Parish School Department, there is a Superintendents' Section and a Deaf Mute Section. A local meeting for the teachers is organized at every convention through the Parish School Department.

In the constitution the aims of the association are stated as follows: "The object of this association shall be to keep in the minds of the people the necessity of religious instruction and training as the basis of morality and sound education; and to promote the principles and safeguard the interests of Catholic education in all its departments; to advance the general interests of Catholic education, to encourage the spirit of co-operation and mutual helpfulness among Catholic educators, to promote by study, conference, and discussion the thoroughness of Catholic educational work in the United States; to help the cause of Catholic education by the publication and circulation of such matter as shall further these ends."

According to the report of the secretary general there were on 1 July, 1908, three hundred and sixty-four members of the Parish School Department, fifty-two colleges in the College Department, and fourteen seminaries in the Seminary Department. The association publishes an annual report giving all the papers and discussions of the association and its departments. It also publishes "The Catholic Educational Association Bulletin" quarterly, which contains matters of interest to the members of the association and articles that have an important bearing on Catholic educational work. The association has issued to 1908 five annual reports from the secretary's office, Columbus, Ohio.

FRANCIS W. HOWARD.

Education of the Blind

Although the education of the blind as a class dates back no further than the year 1784, historians and statisticians generally admit that the affliction which it tends to relieve was no less prevalent before than it has been since that date. Indeed, so far from having increased, blindness appears to have in a marked degree decreased during the last hundred years.

GENERAL STATISTICS OF BLINDNESS

An exact statement of the number of blind persons in all parts of the inhabited earth is of course impossible. The estimates which publicists have formed upon the basis of census returns, as also those derived from the observation of travellers, give the ratio of blind persons to the whole population in Asia 1 to 500; in Africa 1 to 300; in Europe 1 to 1094 (the ratios for seventeen countries of the last-named division being, approximately: England, 1 to 1235; Scotland, 1 to 1118; Ireland, 1 to 870; France, 1 to 1194; Germany, 1 to 1136; European Russia, 1 to 534; Austria, 1 to 1234; Hungary, 1 to 952; Italy, 1 to 1074; Spain, 1 to 835; Denmark, 1 to 1248; Sweden, 1 to 1262; Norway, 1 to 795; Finland, 1 to 689; Belgium, 1 to 1229; Switzerland, 1 to 1325; Bulgaria, 1 to 321). For the other great geographical divisions no data are available for even a fairly satisfactory approximation. (See below Blindness in the United States.) Consistently with the foregoing ratios, and with such conjectures as may be hazarded for America, Australasia, etc., it may be estimated that the number of blind persons now living in all parts of the world is not far short of 2,500,000. A careful study of the figures shows that blindness prevails most in tropical, and least in temperate, regions; more in the Eastern than in the Western Hemisphere. In the temperate climates of the North the blind are comparatively few; nearer the Arctic Circle, the glittering snows, the alternation from the brilliant nights of the Arctic summer to the prolonged darkness of the winter, and other conditions affect the visual organs unfavourably, while in the torrid zones the glare from desert sands and the intense heat of the sun occasion many diseases, resulting in either total or partial loss of sight.

Blindness in the United States

In the Western Hemisphere a different ratio seems to obtain. The data, however, for an accurate comparison are wanting, except in the United States (lying between the 24th and 49th parallels of north latitude), where, according to the census of 1900, the ratio of the blind to the entire population is 1 to 1178. In 1890, the ratio was 1 to 1242. The number of blind persons in the United States originally returned by the enumerators of the Federal Census Bureau, 1900, was 101,123; by subsequent correspondence with individuals, this number was reduced to 64,763; but the special report on "The Blind and the Deaf" states that this should be considered only as a minimum, the correct figure being probably 80,000 and possibly over 100,000. Of the minimum 64,763 reported in the Census, 57.2 per cent were males, 42.8 per cent females; about 13 per cent were under, and about 87 per cent over, twenty years of age. Of the juvenile 13 per cent (8308), those entirely or partially blind before the age of two years numbered 8166.

Causes and Effects

In a careful study of the causes of blindness Cohn of Breslau estimates that among 1000 blind there are only 220 absolutely unavoidable cases, 449 possibly avoidable, and 326 (or nearly one-third) absolutely avoidable. Blindness may result from accident or from disease. The diseases most often productive of blindness are: ophthalmia neonatorum, or inflammation of the eyes of the new-born;. trachoma, often called "granular lids", and glaucoma, and atrophy of the optic nerve. Blindness from ophthalmia of the new-born is so widespread that, according to Magnus, out of 2528 cases of total blindness in Germany, 10.88 per cent were due to this cause. Among the blind under the age of twenty the proportion is as high as 30 per cent. In the United States, between 6000 and 7000 persons have thus become blind. Thanks to improved sanitary conditions in homes, to more intelligent care on the part of midwives and nurses, and more skilful medical treatment, ophthalmia in certain countries appears as a cause of blindness in only seven per cent of the total number of cases, as against the 41 per cent recorded fifty years ago.

The function of sight can, to a certain extent, be replaced by the use of the other senses. Stimulated by necessity and trained by education, touch, hearing, and smell take the place of vision. Having no sight to distract them, moreover, the blind cultivate their remaining senses all the more effectually. As for the exercise of their mental faculties, although wanting some of the means by which various impressions are received, and attention is aroused, the blind are as capable of reflection and reason as other human beings, while, owing to their condition, they are more frequently forced to close mental application. That blindness does not necessarily render its subjects intellectually inferior, may also be inferred from the number of famous persons who were blind from childhood or early youth. A list of such examples might with little difficulty be produced, long enough and important enough to show how erroneous is the idea that the physical darkness of the blind is necessarily associated with intellectual darkness.

HISTORY OF EDUCATION OF THE BLIND

That no attempt was made in ancient times to instruct the blind, or in any way to cultivate their intelligences, was mainly due to the prevalent error as to their mental capacities. The same error, generally speaking, produced the same unfortunate results in Christian civilization until as late as the end of the eighteenth century. On the other hand, the Church, from the earliest ages, at least made provision for their corporal needs, while here and there attempts were made to teach them various handicrafts. Among the most noted of the hospices for the poor and afflicted which began to appear in all parts of Christendom almost as soon as persecution ceased, was that established in the fourth century by Saint Basil at Cæsarea, where special provision was made for the blind, and guides were supplied for them. In the fifth century, Limnæus, a hermit of Syria, received, in cottages especially built for them, the blind of the surrounding country, whom he taught, among other things, to sing the praises of God. Two centuries later, towards the year 630, a refuge exclusively for the blind, such as was called in the Middle Ages a typhlocomium, was founded at Jerusalem.

In the West, the Church was animated with similar charity. Early in the seventh century, St. Bertrand, Bishop of Le Mans, founded a hospice for the blind at Pontlieu, in the north-west of France. In the eleventh century, William the Conqueror, in expiation of his sins, founded a number of institutions; among: them four hospices for the blind and other infirm persons at Cherbourg, Rouen, Bayeux and Caen respectively. Towards 1260, St. Louis, King of France, established at Paris the Hospice des Quinze-Vingts, where he housed and instructed three hundred blind persons. The inmates of the hospice, after the example of the students and the craftsmen of the day, formed among themselves a distinct brotherhood, to whom the saintly king gave special statutes and privileges. It is noteworthy that, in spite of the changes of government, the "Hospice des Quinze-Vingts" has survived to this day. A similar institution, though less extensive, was established and endowed at Chartres by King John the Good in 1350. Provision was made for 120 blind persons. For various reasons, however, the number of inmates dwindled till, in 1837, according to Dufau, there were but ten. A hospice for the blind is said to have been erected (1305) at Bruges, in Flanders, by Robert de Béthune, in gratitude for the courage displayed by the inhabitants in repelling (1300) an invasion of Philip the Fair. A similar foundation was made at Ghent by Peter Van der Leyen about 1370. Brotherhoods of the blind were formed, particularly at Chartres, Caen, Châlons, Meaux, Padua, Memming, Frankfort, and Hull. That the inmates of these institutions received other suitable instruction besides that in the Catechism and in trades there can be no doubt. So desultory, however, were these attempts to give the blind a modicum of education, and so inadequate were the means employed, that the problem of their special education remained unsolved. No one had as yet suggested the idea of providing a permanent literature for them. As early as the sixteenth century attempts were made to devise special processes, but these attempts, so far as we know, met with very little success.

Among others, Girolamo Cardano (1501-1576), an Italian mathematician, had pointed out a way of teaching the blind to read and write by the sense of touch. They were to trace with a steel bodkin or stylus the outline of each of the letters of the alphabet, engraved on metal, until they could distinguish the letters by the sense of touch and reproduce them on paper. Cardano, however, failed to suggest how to write on a straight line with uniformity of space between the lines. In 1575 Rampazetto produced at Rome prints in intaglio from letters carved in wood. His invention was dedicated to St. Charles Borromeo. In 1580, under Philip II, to whom he dedicated his invention, Francesco Lucas, at Madrid, engraved letters in wood for the instruction of the blind; but the letters being sunk in the wood, the outlines could not as readily be followed with the finger-tips. In 1640, Pierre Moreau, a notary at Paris, had movable letters cast for the use of the blind, but for lack of means was unable to follow up his undertaking. In his work, "Deliciæ mathematicæ et physicæ, published at Nuremherg in 1651, George Harsdörffer describes how the blind can recognize, and be taught to name and imitate, letters engraved in wax. Padre Francesco Lana-Terzi, the same Italian Jesuit who anticipated by more than a century the system of lip-reading for deaf mutes, also suggested, as an improvement on Cardano's invention for the blind, a guide consisting of a series of wires and strings arranged in parallel lines at equal distances from one another, to secure straight writing and uniformity of space between the lines. Besides this, Lana-Terzi describes, in his "Prodromo", an invention of his own, by which the blind may be taught to correspond with each other by a secret code. We have looked in vain in works of reference for any description of this cryptographic device. It is so simple that it can be learned in a few hours. Instead of compelling a blind person to learn how to form all the letters of the alphabet, the three methods pointed out by Lana-Terzi demand only a tactual knowledge of the letters, familiarity with their positions in their respective sections, and a little skill;

• (1) to insert one, two, or three dots within a square or parts of a square or right angles turned in four different directions; or
• (2) to prefix to either a comma, colon, semicolon, period, or interrogation mark any one of the first four numerals; or
• (3) merely to form these numerals. The letters of the alphabet with the lines enclosing them, Lana-Terzi suggests, should be in relief rather than in intaglio, raised letters being far more distinguishable to the sense of touch than letters sunk in a plane surface. The following diagrams will make the matter clear.

First (Lana-Terzi) Method

Suppose the blind correspondent wishes to send the cipher message, Son prigione (I am a prisoner), he will turn to his tablet,

and ascertain by touch that the letter s is the second of those enclosed within the lines forming the figure . He will trace this figure with a pencil, and, to indicate that it is the second letter in the above figure, he will write, either above, or below, or within it, two dots, thus . The message in full is as follows: —

= SON PRIGIONE

Second Method

The letters of the alphabet are embossed on a wooden or metallic tablet and distributed in any order whatever into five or more sections, which are indicated by lines in relief. Each section is distinguished from the others by one of the five principal punctuation marks, formed, like the letters, in relief.

The position of each letter in its own section is indicated by one of the first four numerals according to the order in the section. Thus, the message, Il re è morto (the king is dead), would be written as follows: —

Third Method

Instead of designating by punctuation marks the different sections into which the letters are distributed, they may be indicated by numerals, thus: —

By this method the blind person would have to learn how to form only the first five numerals. Thus the above message, Il re è morto, according to this method, would be written as follows: —

the first numeral indicating the position of the letter in the section, and the second numeral the section itself.

To enable the correspondent to make out for himself the answer to his message or communication, Lana-Terzi proposes the following plan: Let each of the correspondents have a table or long strip of wood on which are engraved or embossed the letters of the alphabet arranged in serial order at equal distances from each other, as in the diagram here given.

Suppose now that a person who is not blind should wish to send to his blind friend this message: Il nemico ti trama insidie (the enemy is trying to ensnare you). Let him take a piece of thread or twine, apply the end of it to the extreme point of the tablet, extend the thread over the space from a to the first letter i of the message and make a knot at that point; for the second letter, apply this first knot to point a, extend the thread over the space from a to the letter l, make, as before, a knot at that point, and so on for the rest of the letters. It will readily be understood how the blind person, to whom the roll of knotted thread or twine is sent, can make out the communication by applying the various thread lengths over the distances indicated by the knots, and thus discover each letter of the message. The blind correspondent, in his turn, can easily send by this same method whatever communication he wishes.

A few years after the publication of Lana-Terzi's "Prodromo", Jacques Bernouilli, being at Geneva in 1676, taught Elizabeth Waldkirch to read by a method not unlike that of Cardano. The young lady made such progress that after four years she was able to correspond with her friends in German, French, and Latin, all of which she spoke fluently at the age of fifteen. She knew almost all the Bible by heart, was familiar with philosophy, and was an accomplished musician.

About the year 1711 the first known attempt was made to construct a tactile ciphering-tablet or apparatus by which all the operations of arithmetic might he performed and recorded. This was the work of Nicholas Saunderson, who became blind when one year old. So distinguished was this blind mathematician that he was appointed Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in the University of Cambridge. The Abbé Claude-François Deschamps (1745-91), in his treatise on the education of the deaf and dumb, is said to have also sketched the outlines of the art of teaching the blind to read and write. Diderot in his "Lettre sur les aveugles", which appeared in London in 1749, and for which he was condemned to prison, mentions his interview with Lenôtre, better known as "The Blind Man of Puisaux". Among other remarkable things related of him is the teaching of his son, though not blind, to read by means of raised letters. Between 1772 and 1784 we read of the earliest attempt to make maps in relief for the blind. This invention is ascribed to R. Weissenburg, of Mannheim, who was partially blind at five years of age, and totally at fifteen. Whether any of the credit is due to Weissenburg's teacher, Christian Niesen, cannot be ascertained. Though Diderot was among the first to call special attention to the condition and wants of the blind, and to make them generally known through his famous letter, yet neither he, nor Leibniz, nor Reid, nor Condillac, nor any of the Encyclopedists went beyond abstract psychological speculation. None of them proposed any measure of practical utility or relief nor devised any plans for the instruction and training of sightless persons.

The modern era in the history of education of the blind opened in 1784 — nearly three centuries after the desultory and apparently ineffectual attempts of Cardano and others — when Valentin Haüy (1745-1822) set himself to do for the blind what the Abbé del' Epée had done for deaf mutes. It was in June, 1784, that Haüy met, in one of the churches of Paris, a young mendicant named Lesueur, who had been blind from his birth. Having already spent many years in studying the theory, Haüy took this young waif to be the subject of his first practical essays in teaching the blind. Lesueur was promised a regular daily allowance in place of the income which he was supposed to earn by begging. Before long the number of Haüys pupils increased to twelve, then to double that number, and finally to fifty. His school was at first a day-school, to which children of both sexes were admitted. When Haüy, in 1786, exhibited the attainments of twenty-four of his best pupils at Versailles, Louis XVI and his court were in raptures at the wonderful novelty of children without sight reading, writing, ciphering, doing handicraft work, and playing orchestral music. So great was the interest which this and similar exhibitions aroused, and so generous the patronage of the king and the public which they secured for his school, that Haüy soon had sufficient means to board his pupils. From the very beginning the institution had the triple character of a school, a workshop, and an academy of music; and to this day these three departments have been maintained with such a record for efficiency that the institution founded by Haüy has served as the model for most of the many others in both hemispheres. But true intellectual culture for the blind dates only from the day when reading by touch was made possible. To Haüy is due the credit of having provided a system of tactual printing and a permanent literature for the blind. In the light of a century's progress and of better systems of printing and writing invented since his day, the shortcomings of Haüy's print in relief may lessen the value of his invention, but, in fairness to his memory, it must be remembered that Haüy alone succeeded in making practical for the blind as a class what others before him had merely foreshadowed, or had successfully applied only in individual instances. In spite, therefore, of the derogatory claims made by two or three writers, and notwithstanding that he himself admitted having seen a letter printed by Theresa von Paradis from type made for her by von Kempelen, the fact remains that no one before Haüy had ever tried seriously to make printing available for the blind; to no one before him had the idea occurred of printing books for the blind, or of establishing libraries of literature printed in relief. The movement originated by him has resulted in the establishment in all civilized countries of institutions of learning and industrial training schools for the blind. Before the close of the eighteenth century, a period of only sixteen years, four such institutions had sprung up in Great Britain, viz., in Liverpool (1791), in Edinburgh (1793), in Bristol (1793), and in London (1799). Other countries were not slow in following the example. The following table shows what the leading countries of Europe and America have done for their blind during the nineteenth century: —

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATION OF THE BLIND

General Aspects

In nearly all the countries referred to in the foregoing table, most of the schools for the blind maintain three distinct departments: a literary department, a department of music, and an industrial department. The rank of these institutions is higher or lower from an educational point of view according as more or less prominence is given to literature and music as compared with industrial or manual training. In the leading schools the literary department embraces kindergarten, primary, secondary, and, in a few instances, collegiate education; the department of music embraces primary, secondary, and collegiate education; while the industrial department embraces the teaching of handicrafts, varying in kind according to age, sex, and country. The courses of study in the literary department are generally the same as those pursued in the public high schools of the respective countries. The work in the department of music varies from instruction in the mere elements of music to thoroughly organized courses of study and highly specialized instruction in the science and art of music. In the industrial department the chief trades are: in the male department, piano-tuning, wood-carving, the making of baskets, mats, matting, brooms, and mattresses, chair-caning, hammock-work, and upholstery; in the female department, basket-making, knitting, hand- and machine-sewing, crocheting, fancy work of various kinds.

In the experimental stages of education, there was a tendency in almost all the schools for the blind to make the industrial department the most prominent feature. The lack of books, of adequate educational appliances, and of definite methods, the comparative ease in teaching some one or other of the simpler trades, the want of technical experience on the part of instructors, the dependence upon manual occupations and mechanical arts for self-support, the readiness to be swayed by the utilitarian principle of training the blind for the active duties and occupations opening the way to self-maintenance and independence — these and other similar considerations were strong arguments in favour of industrial training, to the neglect and detriment of the prime and essential work of education. Of late years, however, a marked change has been wrought in the ideals pursued in the education of the blind. Owing to the increase of general intelligence, on the one hand, and the steady decrease in value of manual labour, on the other hand, educators of the blind have come to realize that it is not technical skill, or ability to work successfully at one or more of the usual trades, but only a broad and liberal scheme of education that will release the blind from the bondage of dependence, uplift them as a class, and raise them to a level of usefulness and independence. In consequence of the extensive employment of machinery in almost every department of human activity, there has sprung up among educators of the blind a growing conviction that the only field in which the sightless can hope in the future to compete successfully with the seeing is a field of thought where the intellect can have free play and where blindness will be no hindrance to advancement and success. The blind need, therefore, at least as good an education as the seeing. The question as to whether they are capable and entitled to such an education has not been settled in the same manner in all countries. In many of the European institutions the prevailing idea is that, as a class, the blind must necessarily remain at the foot of the social scale, forever dependent upon the more fortunate classes, and that what is done for them is rather in the spirit of favour and charity than as of strict obligation. In the United States the education of the blind rests on a different basis. As modern methods of instruction have proved the possibility of imparting to the normal blind child practically the same education as to other children, it is generally acknowledged that the blind, as a class, have an equal right with the seeing to share in all the educational benefits which are provided for every child in the commonwealth; and since this education cannot for obvious reasons be given them in the common schools, special provision should be made for their education in distinct institutions, public or private.

Systems of Embossed Print

Three centuries and a half elapsed after the invention of printing before any attempt to make printing available for the blind as a class was successful. Whatever information and inspiration may have been drawn by the ingenious inventor from special processes devised before his day, the credit of having first made reading by finger-touch possible must be accorded to Valentin Haüy (see above). The first book embossed by Haüy for the use of the blind was, according to Guadet, his "Essai sur l'éducation des aveugles" (1786). This book was translated into German by Michel, and into English, in 1795, by the blind poet Blacklock. The style of type adopted by Haüy was the French script, resembling the legal manuscripts of the time. The capital and small letters were respectively fourteen and seven and a half millimetres high. The book was a quarto of 111 pages, printed on one side only, two pages being gummed together back to back, to preserve the relief. The pages were embossed from metal type by the blind children of Haüy's school under the direction of Clousier, the court printer. While this invention won unstinted praise for Haüy, he himself, when he heard his achievements compared to those of the Abbé de l'Epée, modestly protested, "I only fit spectacles, while he bestows a soul." From 1806, the time of Haüy's departure for St. Petersburg, to 1854, when line-print was superseded by point-print, the type used at the Institution des Jeunes Aveugles at Paris, varied between the French script, the Italic, and Roman capitals.

Embossed Printing in England

Printing for the blind had been used in France for forty-three years, in Austria for eighteen, in Prussia for twenty-six, before it was used in England; Haüy's system of printing, it is claimed, was introduced into England by Sir Charles Lowther, to whom it was suggested by a copy of one of the books printed at the Institution des Jeunes Aveugles, and purchased for him by his mother, he being himself blind. In 1826, James Gall, of Edinburgh, who had seen specimens of books embossed at the Paris institution, set himself to improve the alphabet, by making it more perceptible to the touch. In 1827 he printed a small book in an angular modification of the common English alphabet. It is said to have been the first English book printed for the blind in England, and naturally great interest was excited when it was found that the blind could read it easily with their finger-tips. Between 1828 and 1838 no fewer than 20 styles of embossed printing were brought out in Great Britain. Of these, however, only six obtained recognition: those of Haüy, Gall, Fry-Alston, Lucas, Frere, and Moon. Haüy's script was adopted by Sir Charles Lowther in his publication, in 1834, of the Gospel of St. Matthew. Though Gall modified the common characters of the alphabet to make them more easily distinguishable by touch, he did not believe that arbitrary characters would ever be universally adopted, maintaining that these books should be legible to both blind and seeing. Besides two or three booklets previously embossed, Gall printed, in 1832, the Gospel of St. John. The Fry-Alston system of embossed printing is the plain upper-case Roman without ceriphs or the lighter strokes, and was devised by Dr. Edmund Fry and adopted by Alston at the Glasgow Institution for the Blind, of which he was principal. In 1832 the Scottish Society of Arts offered a gold medal for the best system to produce cheapness and tangibility in connexion with an alphabet suited alike to the fingers of the blind and to the eyes of the seeing. Nineteen different alphabets, seventeen of which were of a purely arbitrary character, were submitted to the society between 9 January, 1832, and 24 October, 1833. After much deliberation and a series of rigid tests, the medal was awarded (after Dr. Fry's death) to Alston, 31 May, 1837. From the award made to Dr. Fry's alphabet, the Scottish Society of Arts evidently shared the idea of Haüy and of other advocates of the Roman letter that in the education of the blind everything should be done to establish a bond of vital unity between them and the seeing and to lessen the isolation which arbitrary systems of print would only increase. As Alston's type was rather small and not very legible, his system did not stand the test of time. Lucas invented a stenographic system formed of arbitrary characters and of numerous contractions. In this system the Gospel of St. John and the Acts of the Apostles were printed in 1837 and 1838 respectively. Frere devised a phonetic system which he himself describes as a "scientific representation of speech". It Consists of 34 characters indicating each of the simple sounds in speech. Frere was the first to introduce (1839) the "return lines", in which the reading is alternately from left to right and from right to left, and the letters themselves are reversed in the lines from right to left. He also devised an ingenious system of embossing from stereotype plates; which invention was, at the time, the greatest improvement in embossing since the days of Haüy.

The larger part of the Old and portions of the New Testament were printed in Frere's system. Dr. Moon of Brighton, whose system is used more than any other by the adult blind, at least in England, devised, towards 1845, an alphabet formed of more or less arbitrary characters, which either resemble or suggest a resemblance to the Roman letters which they represent. He also adopted, with a number of slight alterations, Frere's "return tines" and his method of stereotyping. The first book in Moon's system appeared in 1847. The printing of the Bible was begun in 1848 and completed in 1858. Moon's books, though easy to read owing to their large type, are very bulky and expensive; 56 volumes are required for the Protestant edition of the Bible, which omits a number of books contained in the Catholic edition. The chief defects of the Moon system are that it is not a writable system and that it lacks a musical notation. It is useful chiefly for adults whose finger-touch has been dulled by age or manual labour.

Embossed Printing in Continental Europe

Between 1809, when embossed printing, of which he claimed to be the inventor, was begun by Klein, the founder of the first school for the blind at Vienna, and 1841, when Knie, principal of the institution for the blind at Breslau, introduced the Braille system into Germany, three styles of embossed printing, known as the Stachel-, Press-, and Punktierte Typendruck (the needle-, line-, and punctured print) bad been used in Germany, Austria, Holland, Switzerland, and Denmark. These systems were different forms of the upper or lower case or of both upper and lower case, of the Roman letters. Owing to the size of the letters, the books embossed in other parts of Europe were much bulkier than those of like content in France or in England. For a long time after the introduction of the Braille system into Germany, line-print was retained, even where Braille was adopted. it was not until 1876 that interest began to be aroused in regard to uniformity of embossed printing, in consequence, no doubt, of the movement inaugurated in England by the British and Foreign Blind Association in favour of Braille.

Embossed Printing in the United States

From 1832, when the first school for the blind was opened in the United States, to 1860, when Dr. Pollack introduced Braille in the Missouri school (there being then as many as twenty-one institutions for the blind in this country), two systems of printing were in vogue. The first was that of Dr. Howe, the head of the Boston school for the blind, and the second that of Mr. Friedlander, the principal of the Philadelphia school. Dr. Howe's system was the angular lower case Roman and Mr. Friedlander's system the Roman capitals of the Fry-Alston type. In 1835 Dr. Howe published several books in the Boston letter; Mr. Friedlander's Roman capital was not adopted in Philadelphia until 1837. From an educational as well as from an economical point of view, it is a matter of regret that, for the lack of concerted action between the principals of the Boston and the Philadelphia schools, two systems of print should have been imposed at the very outset on the country. From 1837 to 1853 the two systems flourished in their respective spheres without any agitation regarding uniformity of type. In 1851 the Boston line-print was given the preference over all other embossed systems at the London exhibition of industries of all nations. This award, made twenty-six years after the appearance of Braille in France and one year after the adoption of the new system by the Paris institution for the blind, shows how deeply rooted was the theory prevailing since Haüy, that the adoption of any system not resembling in form and appearance the letters in common use would be prejudicial to the best interests of the blind by furthering their segregation from the seeing. A comparison between the leading systems of line-letter print which obtained recognition in France, England, and the United States shows that Haüy's system gave 365 letters on 50 square inches of surface; Gall's, 526; Alston's, 891; Friedlander's (from 1833 to 1834), 290, and 826 after 1836; Howe's, 702 and by a further improvement, it is claimed, 1067 letters.

Braille

In spite of the perfection to which some of the line-letter systems had been brought as regards compactness, a careful study of the functions and limitations of the sense of touch showed that the Roman systems, which lacked the quality of strong appeal to that sense (known as tangibility), could be of no educational value. Besides this, they were practically unwritable, and they provided no adequate means of musical notation. Fortunately, when the various line-types were found deficient, and a strong protest by the intelligent blind in Europe and in the United States was raised against them, a new system was discovered, which possessed all the requisites which were lacking in the line-letter prints. This new system is known as Braille. Its invention by Louis Braille, a blind pupil of the Institution des Jeunes Aveugles of Paris, marked a new epoch in the history of the education of the blind. The original idea of a point-print was derived by Louis Braille from Barbier, who suggested a combination of points arranged in a rectangle — twelve points in two vertical columns of six each. The most conspicuous, though not most radical, defect was the large and unwieldy size of the signs, which could not be covered with the finger. Another drawback was the great waste of space. As the "cell", or rectangle, was of fixed size, if a letter was represented by a point in one corner, all the rest of the space was left blank. This was observed by Braille, who reduced Barbier's rectangle one-half; thus he limited the number of the points to six instead of twelve. The six points in Braille are arranged in two vertical rows of three each. By the omission of one or more of the points sixty-three distinct signs are formed, to represent the entire alphabet, accents, Arabic numerals, marks of punctuation, word- and part-word signs, as well as a system of algebraic and musical notation. Of these sixty-three characters ten are called fundamental signs, and form the basis of all the rest by the addition of one point in some part or other of the "cell" either to the fundamental signs or to the series formed from them. The chief advantages of the Braille system are:

• (1) its simplicity and easy acquisition;
• (2) its "tangibility", or efficiency in impressing the sense of touch, enabling the blind not only to read but also to write;
• (3) its adaptability to both the writing and printing of a system of musical notation.

In spite, however, of its evident advantages, many years went by before the new system obtained recognition, even in countries where, for lack of "tangibility" in the existing systems, the use of books in the class-room had been almost unknown. It is quite possible that the slowness and reluctance in the adoption of Braille were due to the fact that institutions for the blind had been so widely separated in dates of origin and in locality that the need of unity of action and community of interest was but slowly realized. In many cases prejudice, petty jealousy, and obstinate attachment to theories long since proved false, account for the unyielding attitude towards improved methods, which has often stood in the way of true and uniform progress in the education of the blind. From the day when the system was finally adopted in the schools of France, England, Germany, the United States, and other countries, the Braille has undergone various modifications; hence a variety of Braille systems, which have caused even greater confusion than the diversity of the earlier Roman styles of embossed literature. As late as 22 April, 1902, in an address made at the conference held at Westminster on matters relating to the blind, Mr. William H. Illingworth, headmaster of the Royal Blind Asylum and School, West Craigmillar, Edinburgh, spoke as follows regarding the diversity of Braille alphabets and the desirability of a uniform system: "Out of a chaos, born of conflicting opinions and petty jealousies, combined with an almost incredible amount of apathy, indifference and indecision such as exists in the Braille world, it would be impossible by any means short of a miracle to create or to formulate such a scheme. . . . We hear often and are treated to examples of 'English as she is spoke', but I venture to think that for variety and specimens of the grotesque, this pales into insignificance before 'Braille as she is wrote'. Though the time may be quite ripe for a serious attempt being made to improve the existing state of matters, it will require years of patient thought and interchange of opinion, absolute singleness of purpose and charitable, sympathetic self-abnegation to devise a perfectly uniform and practical system, and make the Braille — if that system be the very best system — as perfect and simple as possible and as worthy to be the tangible exponent of the most powerful and universally spoken language of modern times."

New York Point (see cut)

The claim to being, in the words of the writer quoted above, a system "as perfect and simple as possible and as worthy to be the tangible exponent" of the English language can justly be made for the punctographic system known as New York Point, or the Wait system, unquestionably the most perfect form which the idea suggested by Barbier and rescued from oblivion by Louis Braille has as yet attained. This system is a genuine American product, the outcome of years of patient thought, of indefatigable labour, and of absolute singleness of purpose. To Mr. William B. Wait, for upwards of forty-three years at the head of the leading institution for the blind in the United States, is due the credit of the origination, development, construction, and application of the literary, musical, and mathematical codes of the New York Point System. The genesis of this new punctographic system is the result of a desire on the part of Mr. Wait to improve the Braille by remodelling it, on principles of compactness and economy of time and space. Careful study, however, of the structure and application of Braille led to the conclusion that the vertical position of Braille signs, allotting a fixed and unvarying space to all signs alike, was defective in more than one important respect. Owing to its limited number of only sixty-three possible single signs, it was inadequate to the requirements of music, if not to those of literature and mathematics as well; it was also found to be much more bulky, and hence more costly, than the Boston-Line, which, in the absence of any other system, was then taken as a standard. To remedy these structural defects, by increasing the number of signs, and reducing the bulk and cost of books to the lowest possible minimum, only one course was left open. A different mode of sign structure was devised, employing two points instead of three vertically and extending the base forms to three, four, or five points horizontally. By this method the new sign-structure of New york Point yields 120 single, and 20 compound, signs against the 63 single signs to which the Braille is limited, and thus answers all the requirements of literature, music, and mathematics. Besides, even apart from the application of the principle of recurrence in the structure of the New York Point — a principle that was not applied in the original Braille — all the advantages of simplicity, economy of space and (in writing) of time, as well as of cost, are on the side of the Wait or New York Point system, as has been demonstrated by the most rigid tests. Thus, in printing a font of 520 letters in each system on a perfectly uniform scale, the letter-, word-, and line-spaces being the same in each system, any Braille code (where the alphabet only is used, and no contractions or punctuation marks) requires 51.75 per cent more space than the New York Point. The space required by punctuation marks in Braille is 20 per cent greater than in the New York Point. The excess of labour in the writing of Braille is twenty-seven per cent greater than in New York Point. In the writing of punctuation marks there is a slight excess of labour on the side of New York Point. However, the use of punctuation marks does not materially affect the question, as they form only about .04 of the whole bulk of composition. Another advantage of the New York Point over Braille is its having true capitals. In Braille the practice is to place before words requiring capitals a sign identical with the period, and to begin the word with the usual small letter. This requires two full "cells", or sixty per cent more area than the New York capitals, which are four points wide. Although up to the sixth or seventh century no distinction was made in Europe, and none is made to this day in the Oriental alphabets, between capitals and small letters (the latter, in fact, were evolved from the former), yet, for those who are over-exacting regarding "good use", the advantage of possessing true capitals, instead of sham ones, is not inconsiderable. Furthermore, the gliding of the finger over the point-signs in but one direction, the lateral, is, on physiological grounds, an important advantage which the New York Point has over the Braille system, where the finger has to move first in the longitudinal and then in the lateral direction.

Methods of Writing

The invention of the New York Point marked an epoch in the history of the education of the blind; yet, had facilities not been supplied for writing and printing it, the new system would have failed to make its mark as an educational force. Fortunately, however, such appliances were provided by Mr. Wm. Wait in 1894, and consist of a desk-tablet, a pocket-tablet, the kleidograph for paper writing, and the stereograph for embossing the metal plates used in printing. The kleidograph and stereograph have done wonders in facilitating the education of the blind. The former, designed for the purpose of writing literature, music, and mathematics in tactile form, is invaluable for speed and efficiency, and for the reason that what is written by it can at once be read by the blind writer without removing or reversing the paper, as must be done when the tablet is used. At least eighty per cent of the time required for writing music is saved, and sixty per cent for literary work. The stereograph is a development from the kleidograph, designed to emboss both sides of zinc or brass plates ready for use in printing. By its means a compositor can prepare twice or thrice as much matter in a given time as by the movable type; besides, the matter comes from the compositor's hands stereotyped and ready for the press. The cost of the complete plate is reduced by more than one-half. The further application of the interlining process, and of printing on both sides of the sheet at one impression from the plates embossed by Mr. Wait's stereograph, will reduce the cost of books still further, and effect a saving, in metal, in paper, and in binding, of nearly 50 per cent.

The many appliances devised since the days of Valentin Haüy, particularly in France, England, and Germany, to enable the blind to write, may be grouped under three classes. First, the "hand-guides" are designed merely to help the blind to write in straight lines and at equal distances. For correspondence with the seeing, an ordinary pen or, more generally, a lead pencil is used, and the letters are written from left to right. For correspondence with the blind the ordinary letters have to be formed with a blunt stylus from right to left and reversed on paper which is underlaid with some soft material, as felt or blotting-paper, to bring out the written matter in relief on the reverse side of the page and reading from left to right. Valentin Haüy devised a simple method of pencil-writing by placing the paper upon a frame in the interior of which were stretched parallel cords of catgut; between these cords it was an easy matter to write in straight lines and to make the letters of uniform size. Another ingenious way of producing tactile writing was, at the suggestion and request of Haüy, devised by Adet and Hassenfratz in 1783. It was to trace the letters in a bold hand with a glutinous ink, over which sand was spread, so as to form, when it adhered to the letters, a rough sort of relief, or "tangible", writing. Various other fluids were devised for embossed writing, by Challan and Rousseau in 1821, by C. L. Müller in 1823, by Freissauff in 1836, by Riesmer in 1867, and finally by the Abbé Vitali of Milan, in 1893. The use of these various coloured fluids produces a writing which is at once "tangible" to the blind and visible to the seeing.

Among the more elaborate appliances for writing in straight, parallel, equidistant lines, may be mentioned the tablets of Généresse (1807) and of Bruno, the typhlograph of Passard, Dr. Nord's skotograph, Dr. Woizechowsky's amaurograph, Count de Beaufort's stylograph, Wedgewood's noctograph, and the writing-frames of the Elliot brothers, of Thursfield, Dooley, and Levitte. The second class of apparatus are those designed not only to enable the blind to write in straight lines and to make the letters of uniform size, but also to mechanically assist the hand in the formation of the letters and in tracing them at the same distance from each other. These appliances may be divided into line-cell and point-cell frames, according as the ordinary line-letter alphabet or the point system is used in writing. Of the line-cell frames or tablets, the best known are those devised by the Rev. Joseph Engelmann of Linz (1825), James Gall of Edinburgh, Mercier-Capette, Hebold, Dr. Llorens of Barcelona, by C. E. Guldberg of Copenhagen (1858), Galimberti of Milan, Martuscelli of Naples, Moon of Brighton, England, Kemps of Grave, Holland, Ballu, Brother Isidore of Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium, and Mlle Mulot of Angers, France. Mlle Mulot's stylographic frame enables the blind to correspond not only with the sightless, but also with the seeing just as readily and satisfactorily. Of the numerous print-cell writing-frames or tablets designed for writing Braille, the best known are those of Louis Braille, Ballu, Laas-d'Aguen, Krüger, Kull, Pablasek, Signora della Casa, T. R. Armitage; and for writing New York Point, Mr. Wait's desk and pocket-tablet already mentioned. Essentially, all point-cell tablets consist of a board bearing a movable metal plate indented with pits and having connected with it, and over it, a metal guide with two rows of either oblong or square holes. The paper is placed between the pitted plate and the metal guide. The writing is done with a blunt awl or bodkin, which forces the paper into pits, thereby producing the dots which represent the letters. When the paper is taken out and turned over, the writing which was from right to left appears in relief and is read from left to right. The metal guide has from four to five rows of openings, allowing for the writing of four or five lines; when these are written the guide is shifted downwards and held fast to the frame by two little pins, when four or five more lines are written, and the operation is repeated until the end of the page is reached. The third class of apparatus are those designed for increase of speed in writing, not by hand, however, but by mechanical means. Among the principal writing machines for the ordinary line-letter alphabet, are those of Braille-Foucault (1842), Thurber (1847), Hughes of Manchester (1850), Larivière of Nancy, Saintard (1847), Hirzel of Lausanne, Oehlwein of Weimar, Marchesi, Colard Viennot, Gastaldon of Turin, Ballu (1861), the Hammond, Simplex, Yost, Blickensderfer, Caligraph, etc. Without any doubt, the most rapid and most satisfactory way for the blind to correspond with the seeing is by means of typewriters. All methods of writing, however, which are not tangible to the fingers are liable to the objection that the written matter cannot be revised and corrected by the blind writer. Of machines constructed for embossing Braille and New York Point, those chiefly in use in the United States are Hall's writer, for Braille, and Wait's kleidograph, for New York Point. In France, England, and Germany, a number of Braille machines have been designed on the lines of Hall's Braille-writer.

Geography

The blind are fond of the study of geography, and with proper teaching are as capable of forming correct geographical notions as the seeing. Most of the detailed teaching of geography, however, must be from raised maps. In the elementary course, rough maps made by the pupils themselves on cushions by means of pins and string are very helpful. The first maps used by the blind were on embroidered cloth or canvas, the needle-work representing the land and the plain cloth the water; boundaries were marked by coarse corded stitches, and towns and cities by points made with the same coarse material. Various attempts were subsequently made to construct relief maps on paper or cardboard, the boundary lines, river courses, lakes, bays, positions of towns and cities, etc., being represented in a variety of ways. The best thus far made are the wooden dissected maps, in which the divisions of a country are represented by a movable section, bodies of water by a depression in the wood, hills and mountains by a slight elevation, towns and cities by brass-headed nails. When all the movable sections are fitted together they form a complete map. The main objection to the dissected maps is that they are very expensive and better suited to individual than to class teaching.

The Teaching of Arithmetic

Records are not wanting to show that, from the very beginning, arithmetic and other branches of mathematics held an important place in the education provided by institutions for the blind. It was soon observed that the blind displayed great fondness for arithmetical calculations. While mental arithmetic was particularly encouraged, it became evident that in the more advanced branches of the science, the blind needed special apparatus, and various appliances were devised to meet this want. Among the earliest attempts to construct a tangible device for the more abstruse calculations of arithmetic and algebra is that of the great mathematician, Nicholas Saunderson. Since his day a great many different ciphering boards, or tablets, have been constructed. One of the best is Taylor's octagonal board with square pins and octagonal holes. On one end of the pin one of the edges is raised into a prominent ridge, and on the other end there is a similar ridge divided in the middle by a deep notch. The holes in the board are star-shaped, with eight points. The pin can be placed in eight different positions, and on reversing it, with the notched end uppermost, in eight more; this gives ten signs for the Arabic numerals and six for the ordinary algebraic signs. For pure algebra another pin is needed, differing from that used in arithmetic. This gives sixteen additional signs, which are quite sufficient.

It is essential for a good arithmetic board that the same pin should represent every character; otherwise time is lost in selecting the required character and in distributing the type at the end of each operation. In the United States a board is used with square holes, and two kinds of type are required to give even the Arabic numbers.

Music

Since the days of Haüy, music has always been considered as one of the most potent factors in the education of the blind, offering them advantages which they can derive from no other source. Though a fair percentage of the blind attain to a high degree of musical skill, and find for themselves positions of responsibility and importance, yet, contrary to the general belief, no larger proportion of persons with exceptional musical talent is found among the blind than in any other class. The common idea that the blind are taught music by ear is erroneous; it arises partly from the assumption that those who are sightless must of course possess an abnormally acute sense of hearing, and partly from the fact that so many persons are unaware that a tactile musical notation exists. Since 1784 there have, in fact, been almost as many such systems as systems of embossed reading. Besides the common musical notation in relief, used by Valentin Haüy, by W. Taylor of York, and Alston of Glasgow, special systems were devised by Frere, Lucas, and Moon in England; by Guadet, Rousseau, and the Abbé Goupil, in France; by Klein, Krähmer, Oehlwein, and Warschauer, in Germany; by Petzelt in Austria; by D. Pedro Liorens in Spain; and by M. Mahony in the United States. In most of these systems the common letters in relief were used to express the notes and their values, the octave, finger, repeat, and time signs, etc. All of the above systems, however, with the exception of the common musical notation in relief, have long since been entirely superseded by the Braille and the New York Point systems of musical notation. Soon after Louis Braille had devised the literary code he adapted his punctographic system to musical notation. An outline of the New York Point musical notation was first presented in 1872, and the first edition of the notation was printed in the same year. In 1878 it received the unanimous approbation of the American Association of Instructors of the Blind, and it was adopted a few years later in most of the institutions for the blind in the United States. As to the comparative merits of the two systems, it is claimed that the Braille notation is inferior in completeness and clearness of expression. The notation of music requires not less than 140 signs. The New York system, extending to four or five points horizontally, yields 120 single and 20 compound signs, while the Braille system admits of but 63 single signs and requires a uniform space for each.

Ambiguity is the consequence of this inadequate number of signs, the same sign being made to represent two different things of the same species, as, for example, a whole note and a sixteenth, a half-note and a thirty-second.

Industrial Training

From the very beginning of systematic education of the blind down to the last decade, industrial training has always occupied a decidedly prominent place in the curriculum. Too often, particularly in the earlier days, the essential work of education was subordinated to conditions created and demands made by the industries. Instead of being used as a means of education, the teaching of trades was made the chief aim and end. The success of certain pupils in careers from which they seemed necessarily excluded naturally gave rise to somewhat extravagant hopes of the possibilities of industrial education. Hence, perhaps, arose the prevalent notion and expectation that schools for the blind should graduate young men and women so equipped that each and all would be self-supporting and able to earn as much, or nearly as much, as persons of equal natural ability with the sense of sight. The fact, however, is that only a small proportion of the blind in Europe and America are wholly self-supporting. According to the United States Census of 1900, of 62,456 blind persons, ten years of age and upwards, only 12,506, or about 20 per cent, were reported as regularly engaged in remunerative occupations. The percentage of the general population so employed was upwards of 50. As most institutions for the blind, particularly in the United States, are open to all blind children of average intelligence, the heterogeneous character of the membership of such schools must lower the standard of efficiency. Another factor which has too often been lost sight of is that blindness is a disabling infirmity. Education is much slower and more difficult with only four senses than with five; it would, therefore, be unreasonable to expect better results of the schools for the blind than are expected of the public schools for normal children, in which schools neither trades nor music are taught. The teaching of skilled trades, it must also be remembered, properly belongs to a stage of education later than the primary, and it should not be allowed to trespass upon the legitimate work of the schools. As soon as adults are admitted to the school with minors, the industrial feature tends to become dominant and unavoidably imparts an element of commercialism to the school. Both adults and younger pupils become disposed to lay more stress on shop work than on mental exercises and discipline. In consequence, the finished pupils lack those general qualifications which are necessary to begin business in the trades they have learned, and still more to successfully compete against sight and machinery. The long, trying, and costly experience of the leading schools in the United States has, moreover, proved that the teaching of trades or industries during the school period confers no lasting good upon the pupils and is void of even such results as the sense of self-reliance and desire to become self-supporting which, it was believed, were being promoted. For these reasons the industrial experiment is gradually being abandoned in order to save the institutions for that strictly educational work for which they were established. If trades, then, are to be taught the blind, and industries to be carried on by them, the technical training should, as in the case of seeing pupils, be taken up only after the completion of the primary or secondary course of studies and in a location altogether removed from the school proper.

Manual Training

Instead of the teaching of the ordinary trades, which, owing to the radical change in industrial conditions, can no longer be carried on by the blind at a financial profit, a system of regular and thorough training of the hands, the senses, and the muscles has been generally introduced in the leading American institutions for the blind. The various forms of solid work, of work in clay, paper, and cardboard, as well as sewing, cooking, weaving, basketry, simple wood-carving, etc., are the processes of manual training most commonly employed in the general education of the blind.

Physical Training

Educators of both blind and seeing pupils are in entire accord as to the great importance of physical training. The blind, for obvious reasons, are peculiarly in need of healthful, systematic exercise. Observation and statistics show that their health and strength are far below the normal standard. Hence, before there is any hope of obtaining satisfactory educational results, all physical and physiological defects, such as deformities in the muscular system, unsightly movements, natural timidity, awkwardness in walking, etc., must be corrected as far as possible. In view of these facts, physical training forms an integral part of the regular curriculum of the schools for the blind.

Libraries for the Blind

It is almost impossible for those who enjoy the use of sight to realize what a boon reading is for those who live in perpetual darkness. Outside of their early education, for those who have been blessed with it, there is nothing in the life of the blind so stimulating, so broadening, and so comforting as good books. In no country have more efforts been made to supply the blind with books and to solve the problem of their circulation than in the United States. In no country has such a liberal government provision been made for the education of the blind through the publication of books as was made by the United States Government, when by an act of Congress (3 March, 1879) the sum of $250,000 was set apart as a perpetual fund, the interest of which ($10,000) is expended each year in printing and distributing suitable books among the institutions for the blind in the United States. Mainly as a result of this provision, the number of volumes distributed among the thirty-nine school libraries amounts, according to the Annual Report of the Department of the Interior for 1902, to 105,804 volumes, an average of 2713 volumes per school. In France and in England, it must be admitted, there is far greater individual co-operation and a more generous interest displayed in furthering the extension of libraries for the blind than in the United States. Thus the "Association Valentin Haüy" of Paris had, in 1905, on its list of voluntary writers of books for the blind the names of 1150 persons who embossed in Braille and donated in that year to the "Bibliothèque Braille", for its forty-nine travelling libraries, 1533 volumes. In the same year the British and Foreign Blind Association of London was indebted to 574 generous persons who gave valuable time in writing Braille books for the blind.

Catholic Literature for the Blind in the United States

Before 1900, with the exception of a small catechism and Cardinal Gibbons' "Faith of Our Fathers", there were no Catholic books for the blind to be had in this country. To supply this long-felt want, which, with the dearth of Catholic schools for the blind, has resulted in the loss to the Church of thousands among the Catholic blind, the writer of this article founded, in January, 1900, a society whose aim it is to place gratuitously within the reach of the blind throughout the United States Catholic literature embossed in the Wait, or New York Point, print. With the assistance of a few devoted ladies, who helped to raise the necessary funds, a printing plant was equipped and has been in operation ever since. The society was incorporated in March, 1904, under the name of "The Xavier Free Publication Society for the Blind of the City of New York". Although from its inception the society has been dependent for the maintenance of its work upon donations and annual subscriptions, still, with the encouragement and blessing of the Catholic hierarchy, the deep appreciation and gratitude of thousands of Catholic blind throughout the country, and the generous help of its benefactors, it has been enabled to pursue its beneficent object for the moral and intellectual elevation of the blind. Since its foundation, thousands of volumes of Catholic literature, embracing ascetical, Biblical, biographical, doctrinal, and historical works, as well as works of general literature, of fiction, and of poetry, have been placed in upwards of thirty-seven state, city, or institute libraries for general and free circulation among the blind. The publications of the society are also circulated throughout the country from its own central library. "The Catholic Transcript for the Blind", a monthly magazine, published by the Xavier Free Publication Society for the Blind since 1900, is so far (1909) the only Catholic periodical embossed in the English language.

Catholic Literature in England

lt is only within the last five years that, through the initiative of the Hon. Mrs. G. M. Fraser, who taught Braille to most of the writers, upwards of four hundred books have been hand-typed by voluntary workers and placed at the disposal of the Catholic Truth Society of London for circulation among the Catholic blind in Great Britain. This work would not have been undertaken had it been possible to get Catholic books at the great English libraries for the blind.

The Blind-Deaf

According to the special reports of the United States Census Office for 1900, of the 64,763 persons reported as blind, 2772, or nearly 43 per 1000, were found to be also deaf. The age of the occurrence of these two defects cannot be stated exactly, except for those blind and deaf from birth, of whom there are 76. Between birth and five years of age are 64; between five and nine, 54; between ten and fourteen, 37; between fifteen and nineteen, 24. That the public, and even professional educators, entertain incorrect views on the education of this class of sufferers has been shown by Mr. William Wade in his interesting monograph, "The Blind-Deaf". For this excellent publication, and still more for his widespread and munificent charity to the blind-deaf, and particularly to the deaf and dumb and blind of this country, Mr. Wade's name deserves to be forever enshrined in the hearts of this doubly and trebly afflicted class. The knowledge by the public that the education of the blind-deaf is by no means the difficult task commonly believed, and the further knowledge of the number of those who have been educated and of their advanced position in mental attainments, will do much, it is contended by the author of the monograph, to advance the interests and the happiness of the blind-deaf. "In the early education of the blind-deaf", we are told by Dora Donald, "there are three distinct periods. In the first the pupil receives impressions from the material world. The mind of a blind-deaf child does not differ from that of a normal child; given the same opportunity, it will develop in the same way. Whilst the normal child discovers the world through the five senses, the world must be brought to the blind-deaf child and imparted by the teacher through the sense of touch. During the second period the child is taught to give utterance to his conceptions. This may be done either through the sign language, the manual alphabet of the deaf, or through one of the systems of raised print for the blind, if articulated speech cannot be taught the child. The third and by far the most difficult step is that of procuring mental images from the printed page. If the child has been thoroughly trained in the habit of personal investigation, if he has been taught to express freely the results of such investigation by means of the manual alphabet and to record them in print, he will eventually be able to reverse the process and to build about him an imaginary existence that will cause the printed page to teem with life and to glow with the charm of actual existence. At this stage of the child's education, he may enter either a school for the deaf, a school for the blind, or the common school for normal children. Supplied with the necessary apparatus and accompanied by a teacher who will faithfully translate all that he might obtain through sight and hearing, he may be taught by the same methods used for normal children, ever keeping in mind this one point of difference — touch must take the place of sight and hearing; the manual alphabet or embossed page being substituted for speech."

NEOVIN, Cœcus de Colore Judicans (Jena, 1682); TRINK-HUSIUS Dissertatiuncula de Cœcis (Genoa, 1672); GUILBEAU, Histoire de l'Institution Nationale des Jeunes Aveugles (Paris, 1907); ARNOULD, Une âme en prison (Paris, 1904); DE LA SIZERANNE, Les sœurs aveugles (Paris, 1901), tr. by LEGGATT, The Blind Sisters of St. Paul (New York 1907); ID., Les aveugles par un aveugle (Paris, 1889); BUISSON, Dictionnaire de pédagogie (Paris, 1887); MELL, Encyklopädisches Handbuch des Blindenwesens (Vienna, 1900); MERLE., Das Blinden Bildungs-Wesen (Norden, 1887); HELLER, Studien zur Blindenpsychologie (Leipzig, 1904); VIGNALI, La Educazione dei Ciechi (Florence, 1903); LANA-TERZI, Prodromo all' Arte Maestra (Brescia 1670); ILLINGSWORTH, Past and Present Methods of Educating the Blind; LEVY, Blindness and the Blind (London, 1872); GALL, Literature for the Blind (Edinburgh, 1834); Report of the Conference on Matters Relating to the Blind (Westminster, 1902); ARMITAGE, The Education and Employment of the Blind (London 1886); Annual Reports of American Institutions for the Blind; Report of the New York State Commission to Investigate the Condition of the Blind (Albany, 1906); ANAGNOS, Education of the Blind (Boston, 1882); WADE, The Blind-Deaf (2nd ed., Indianapolis, 1904).

JOSEPH M. STADELMAN

Education of the Deaf and Dumb

Education essentially includes the process of encouraging, strengthening, and guiding the faculties, whether of mind or body, so as to make them fit and ready instruments for the work they have to do; and, where the need exists, it must include, moreover, the awakening for the first time into activity and usefulness of some faculty which, but for the awakening, might remain forever dormant. As regards intellectual development, the deaf individual is the most handicapped of the afflicted class. The term "deaf and dumb", so frequently applied to that class of individuals who neither hear nor speak, is becoming obsolete among the educators of the deaf, as it implies a radical defect in both the auditory and the vocal organism. Persons who are born deaf, or who lose their hearing at a very early age, are unable to speak, although their vocal organs may be unimpaired. They become dumb because, being deprived of hearing, they are unable to imitate the sounds which constitute speech. To correct the error involved in the term dumb, it is customary to speak of human beings who do not hear and speak as deaf-mutes, a term which implies that they are silent, but not necessarily incapable of speaking. Brute animals that are deaf, are deaf and dumb; the little child, before it has learned to speak, is mute, but not dumb. There are found individuals who can hear, but cannot speak. To such may be applied the term dumb, inasmuch as they are either destitute of the power of speech or are unwilling to speak and are lacking in intelligence. Such children are generally found to be more or less idiotic. On account of the great progress made, especially during the last century, in the education of deaf-mutes, by which a large percentage are taught to speak, the term mute is also omitted when speaking of matters pertaining to that class formerly designated as "deaf and dumb". Institutions for them are named preferably "Schools for the Deaf", and in the literature of the subject they are spoken of simply as the "deaf", e. g. "The Annals of the Deaf", etc. Here it is well to remark, that there is a strong and growing objection among the deaf and their educators to calling their institutions asylums — a term which classifies them with unfortunates needing relief and protection, like the insane. In fact, Webster, under the word "Asylum", classes the deaf and dumb with the insane. Efforts are consequently being made to place such institutions under the control of educational rather than of charity boards.

HISTORY

That there were deaf persons in the remote past is evident from the fact that the causes of deafness, such as disease, were as prevalent then as now. Before the Christian Era, their condition was deplorable. By many they were considered as under the curse of heaven; they were called monsters and even put to death as soon as their deafness was satisfactorily ascertained. Lucretius voices the received opinion that they could not be educated: —

• To instruct the deaf, no art can ever reach,
• No care improve them, and no wisdom teach.

Greek and Roman poets and philosophers classified them with defectives, and the Justinian Code abridged their civil rights. In the family they were considered a disgrace, or were looked upon as a useless burden and kept in isolation. It is a bright page in the New Testament which narrates the kindness of our Divine Lord, who, doing good to all, did not forget the deaf and dumb. After His example, the Church has extended its charity to this afflicted class, and has led the way in opening up for them other channels of thought in place of the hearing faculty. The statement met with in literature connected with the education of the deaf, that the real history of deaf-mute instruction must be considered as dating from the Reformation, is the old fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fact is, that not a few of the more famous educators of the deaf received their first lessons from those who preceded the Reformation or were not influenced by its errors, but undertook the instruction of deaf-mutes for the sole purpose of imparting religious instruction. No Catholic theologian maintained that the adult deaf and dumb from birth are beyond the pale of salvation, because "Faith cometh by hearing" (Rom., x, 17). The assertion is often made, without references being given, that St. Augustine held such an opinion. Although the great doctor may have held the opinion of his time, that the deaf could not be educated, he certainly did not exclude them from the possibility of salvation any more than he excluded pagans to whom the Gospel had not yet been preached.

That the deaf are very much handicapped, even in our time, as regards religious instruction, so necessary for the preservation of faith and morals, must be admitted. Many deaf-mutes born of Catholic parents have lost the Faith, owing to a lack of Catholic educational facilities. Moreover, they are deprived of the usual Sunday instructions and sermons. There are in the United States few priests engaged in ministering to their spiritual welfare, and such as have taken up this apostolate are not at leisure to devote their whole energy to the work. On the other hand, Protestant ministers travel through the length and breadth of the land and in their monthly itineraries assemble the deaf for religious services. There can be no doubt that from the dawn of Christianity the deaf enlisted the sympathy and zeal of many priests and missionaries who, by various ingenious devices suited to the occasion, taught them the essential truths of faith: but history has left meagre records of their good work. According to Venerable Bede, St. John of Beverley (721) caused a deaf and dumb youth to speak by making the sign of the cross over him; and Bede himself, in his "De Loquelâ per gestum digitorum", describes a manual alphabet. Rudolph Agricola, the distinguished humanist (1443-1485), states that he saw a deaf and dumb man who was able to converse with others by writing (De inventione dialecticâ, III, xvi). Ponce de Leon (1520-1584), a Spanish Benedictine monk, undertook the education of several deaf-mutes, as is related in the accounts of his work discovered among the archives at Oña. He relates that he taught pupils who were deaf and dumb from birth to speak, to read, to write, and to keep accounts, to repeat prayers and to confess orally. He first taught his pupils to write the names of objects and then to articulate. A contemporary writer, Francesco Valles, says that Ponce de Leon's method proved that, although we learn first to speak and then to write, the reverse order answers the same purpose for the deaf. It is highly probable that he was led to undertake the instruction of the deaf and dumb by the principle announced by Girolamo Cardano (1501-1576), a friend of St. Charles Borromeo, that "writing is associated with speech, and speech with thought, but written characters may be connected together without the intervention of sounds. The deaf can hear by reading, and speak by writing." About fifty years later, Juan Pablo Bonet, a Spanish priest, published a treatise entitled, "Reduccion de las Letras y arte para Enseñar a hablar los Mudos" (Madrid, 1620). He made use of a manual alphabet, invented a system of visible signs representing to the sight the sounds of words, and gave a description of the position of the vocal organs in the pronunciation of each letter. His work contains many valuable suggestions useful to modern teachers of articulation and lip-reading.

St. Francis de Sales, having on his missionary journeys met a deaf-mute, took him into his service and succeeded in establishing communication with him by signs, and prepared him for confession and Holy Communion. The celebrated Jesuit naturalist and physician, Lana Terzi (1631-1687), in his "Prodromo dell' Arte Maestra", considers the education of the deaf, which, according to him, consists in their "first learning to perceive the dispositions of the organs of speech in the formation of sounds, and then imitating them; and recognizing speech in others by lip-reading. To that end they should first utter each sound separately, read it on the lips of another, then join them in words; next they should be taught the meaning of these words by being shown the objects signified, and gradually be made acquainted with the meaning of those which relate to the functions of the senses, the arts, the understanding and the will" (Arnold). Lorenza Hervas y Panduro (1735-1809), a celebrated Spanish philologist and missionary in America, took an active interest in the education of the deaf in Rome and published a learned work in two volumes entitled "Escuela Española de Sordo-mudos, o Arte Para Enseñarles a Escribir y Hablar el Idioma Español" (Madrid, 1795). The work consists of five parts, "the first dealing with the deaf in the political, physical, philosophical, and theological aspects of the subject and the linguistic questions it gives rise to; the second is a history of their education up to that time, which is the first complete account written; the third explains the practical method of teaching idiomatic language by writing; the fourth that of teaching speech; and the fifth is on the instruction of the deaf in metaphysical ideas and in moral and religious knowledge" (Arnold).

Among other writers in the interest of the education of the deaf and dumb must be mentioned John Bulwer (1645); Deusing (died 1666), who in his writings recommends writing, signs, and, on occasion, lip-reading as the helpful instruments in the education of the deaf; William Holder (1616-1698), and his contemporary, John Wallis (1616-1703); George Dalgarno (1626-1687), of Aberdeen, Scotland, who published, in 1661, "Ars Signorum" and, in 1680, "Didascalocophus" (or "Deaf and Dumb Man's Tutor"), and devised a double-handed alphabet; Baron Von Helmont (1618-1699); John Conrad Amman (1669-1724), a native •of Schaffhausen, Switzerland, who published (1700) "Dissertatio de Loquelâ", in which are described the means by which the deaf and dumb from birth may acquire speech.

Although Germany cannot claim originality in the field of the education of the deaf and dumb, several works published in other countries were translated into German, and their teachings put in practice. Among the earliest to take up this work were Kerger (1704), Raphel (1673-1740), Lasius (1775), and Arnoldi (1777). The first public institution for the deaf in Germany was established by Samuel Heinicke (1729-1790), the great advocate of the oral method of instruction, which has generally been followed in German schools for the deaf. To Friedrich Moritz Hill (1805-1874), regarded as one of the greatest teachers of the deaf, is due what is distinctively called the "German System", which has found an able critic in J. Heidsiek, of the Breslau Institution for the Deaf, in a work entitled "Der Taubstumme und seine Sprache". Jacob Rodriguez Pereire (1715-1780), a Portuguese Jew, gave an exhibition of his skill in teaching the deaf before the Academy of Science in Paris. "His efforts were confined to a privileged few, and, from this circumstance, as well as his keeping his methods secret, his work, unlike de l'Epée's, had no lasting effect upon the deaf as a class" (Arnold). Abbé Deschamps, of Orléans, devoted his life and fortune to the education of the deaf-mutes and, in his instructions, relied chiefly on reading and writing together with speech and lip-reading.

Up to the middle of the eighteenth century, it was believed that speech was indispensable to thought. The practical utility of pantomime had not been fully shown before the days of Abbé Charles-Michel de l'Epée (1712-1789), the father of the sign-language and founder of the first school for the deaf. The deplorable condition of the two deaf-mutes whom he chanced to meet on one of his missionary errands excited his compassion and awakened in him zeal for their religious instruction. He discovered others of the same class, especially among the poor, and to these he devoted his time and fortune. In his first attempt to teach his silent pupils he tried the method of pictures used by Père Vanin before him; but, finding this method unsatisfactory, he tried the articulation method, which he found discouragingly slow. Noticing, as every instructor of the deaf has noticed, that deaf-mute children, even before having received instruction from anyone, will, at play and at other times, communicate with each other in pantomime and make use of certain natural gestures indicative of objects, their quality and action, he came upon the idea of using a sign-language as the means of instruction. Since words are conventional signs of our ideas, why could not conventional gestures be signs of ideas? He concluded that the natural language of signs, which the deaf-mutes themselves invent, would be of great service in their instruction. He accordingly made himself familiar with the few signs already in use and added others more or less arbitrary. He opened a school for deaf-mutes in Paris, about 1760, which soon won international fame. De l'Epée died in 1789, leaving as his successor the Abbé Sicard, who made important improvements in the system of de l'Epée. At about the same time a school for the deaf was opened by Samuel Heinicke at Dresden, which was afterwards removed to Leipzig, and another by Thomas Braidwood, at Edinburgh. The successful results obtained in these schools prompted other cities and countries to establish similar ones under the direction of persons trained by de l'Epée, Heinicke, or their disciples.

In Italy the first school for the deaf was established in 1784 at Rome, by the Abbate Silvestri, a disciple of Abbé de l'Epée. Among other Italian educators must be mentioned Tommaso Pendola (1800-1883) and his brilliant associate, Enrico Marchio; Abbate Balestra and Abbate Giulio Tarra (1832-1889), who acted as president at the Milan International Congress in 1880 and saw his most cherished ideas regarding oral teaching practically approved by the resolutions that were adopted, and which hastened the progress of oral teaching, especially in France.

Francis Green, a native of Boston, 1742, whose son was a deaf-mute, was the earliest advocate of deaf-mute education in America. In his "Vox Oculis Subjecta", published in London, 1783, he describes the method by which the deaf-mute may be taught to speak. In about 1812, John Braidwood, Jr., a grandson of the founder of the Edinburgh school, attempted to establish schools in Virginia, New York, and Baltimore, but failed. "The immediate effects", says the "History of American Schools for the Deaf" (I, 10), "was to hinder and delay the opening of the first permanent school; for the members of his family in Great Britain, who controlled the monopoly of deaf-mute instruction in America, placed obstacles in the way of Dr. Gallaudet, when he sought to acquire the art of instruction in the mother country." An exceptionally large number of deaf-mutes having been found in the State of Connecticut by Dr. M. F. Cogswell, whose daughter was deaf, a corporation of several gentlemen was enlisted for the purpose of establishing a school at Hartford, under the care of Dr. Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet. For the purpose of mastering the art of instructing the deaf, Dr. Gallaudet sailed for England; but the exorbitant and humiliating terms imposed by the Braidwood-Watson family, which held the monopoly of the art, repelled him. Happening to meet Abbé Sicard, who with his pupils was visiting London, he accepted an invitation to visit the school in Paris. Here he received every assistance. The abbé gave him several hours of instruction every week and generously allowed Laurent Clerc, one of his distinguished pupils and valuable associates, to accompany him on his return to America. In the contract drawn up between Dr. Gallaudet and Laurent Clerc, it is stipulated (article 11): "He [Laurent Clerc] is not to be called upon to teach anything contrary to the Roman Catholic religion", and in his letter to Bishop Cheverus of Boston, Abbé Sicard writes: "The extreme desire to procure for the unfortunate deaf-mutes of the country in which you dwell, and fulfill so well the mission of the Holy Apostles, the happiness of knowing our holy religion, leads me to a sacrifice which would exceed human strength. I send to the United States the best taught of my pupils a deaf-mute whom my art has restored to society and religion. He goes fully resolved to live and be faithful to the principles of the Catholic religion which I have taught him." Notwithstanding the kind solicitude of his beloved master, Laurent Clerc, like so many other deaf-mutes deprived of constant religious instruction, in his surroundings weakened in the Faith and apostatized. The, kindness of Abbé Sicard only served to lay the foundation of a Protestant propaganda which, ever since the opening of the Hartford School founded by Dr. Gallaudet, has controlled the education of the deaf in America. This Hartford School, then known as the American Asylum, was opened 15 April, 1817, under the superintendency of the Rev. Dr. Gallaudet, whose two sons, the Rev. T. Gallaudet and E. M. Gallaudet, have been active in the cause of deaf-mute education. The latter was the founder of the Columbia Institution for the Deaf and Dumb at Washington, D. C., which was opened 13 June, 1857. Later on, in 1864, it developed into a school for the higher education of the deaf under the name of the National Deaf-Mute College. Connected with the college is a normal department for the training of teachers for the deaf. A course of studies leading up to entrance into the National Deaf-Mute College may be found in the "American Annals of the Deaf" for November, 1907. As regards higher education and normal-school practice, opportunities are also afforded by the Catholic deaf-mute schools in the State of New York.

When the Abbé de l'Epée originated the method of signs, many of his contemporaries, such as the Abbé Deschamps, refused to be associated with the new school, and between him and Samuel Heinicke of Leipzig, the great upholder of the speech method, there was carried on a spirited controversy, which has continued ever since, among the educators of the deaf. Professor E. A. Fay, in the "American Annals of the Deaf", gives the following classification and definition of the methods used in the schools for the deaf: —

• "(1) The Manual Method: — Signs, the manual alphabet, and writing are the chief means used in the instruction of the pupils, and the principal objects aimed at are mental development, and facility in the comprehension and use of written language. The degree of relative importance given to these three means varies in different schools; but it is a difference only in degree, and the end aimed at is the same in all.
• "(2) The Manual Alphabet Method: — The manual alphabet method and writing are the chief means used in the instruction of the pupils, and the principal objects aimed at are mental development, and facility in the comprehension and use of written language. Speech and speech-reading are taught to all of the pupils in one of the schools (the Western New York Institution) recorded as following this method.
• "(3) The Oral Method: — Speech and speech-reading, together with writing, are made the chief means of instruction, and facility in speech and speech-reading, as well as mental development and written language, is aimed at. There is a difference in different schools in the extent to which the use of natural signs is allowed in the early part of the course, and also in the prominence given to writing as an auxiliary to speech and speech-reading in the course of instruction; but they are differences only in degree, and the end aimed at is the same in all.
• "(4) The Auricular Method: — The hearing of semi-deaf pupils is utilized and developed to the greatest possible extent, and, with or without the aid of artificial appliances, their education is carried on chiefly through the use of speech and hearing, together with writing. The aim of the method is to graduate its pupils as hard-of-hearing speaking people instead of deaf-mutes.
• "(5) The Combined System: — Speech and speech-reading are regarded as very important., but mental development and the acquisition of language are regarded as still more important. It is believed that, in many cases, mental development and the acquisition of language can be best promoted by the manual or the manual-alphabet method, and so far as circumstances permit, such method is chosen for each pupil as seems best adapted for his individual case. Speech and speech-reading are taught where the measure of success seems likely to justify the labor expended, and, in most of the schools, some of the pupils are taught wholly or chiefly by the oral method or by the auricular method."

Some educators of the deaf employ the method of visible speech, which is a species of phonetic writing: symbolizing the movements of the vocal organs in the production of speech. There is also a phonetic manual in which the several positions of the hand not only represent various speech sounds, but also indicate concisely the way in which the represented sound is, physiologically or mechanically produced (see Lyon, "Phonetic Manual", Rochester, New York, 1891). Whipple, in his "Phonetic Manual", endeavours to depict the positions taken by the visible organs, the teeth, lips, tongue, and palate, in the production of sound.

It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the merits of the various methods in use. A teacher of the deaf cannot lose sight of the fact that in the term deaf, or deaf-mute, there are included at least four sub-classes, namely, the semi-mutes, who have lost their hearing after they had acquired more or less perfectly the use of language; the semi-deaf, who retain some power of hearing, but yet cannot attend with profit schools for hearing children; the congenitally deaf, possessing some ability to perceive sound; and the totally deaf from birth, who are unable to perceive sound. A teacher of hearing children may take for granted, if the class is properly graded, that all his pupils are on the same plane; but a teacher of the deaf, whose pupils may be only four in number, may have before him, even in the lowest grade, as many different kinds of deaf children as there are pupils in the class. These he must instruct and educate. Considering that the deaf child is very much handicapped, and that the period of its school-days are limited, it is reasonable to suppose that a good teacher will take advantage of every latent power possessed by the child for educational development. In a word, the teacher will suit the method to the child and not endeavour to adapt the child to the method. It would certainly be a mistake to use the purely oral method for all deaf-mutes without discrimination and without considering the capacity, eyesight, etc. of the pupil.

AIDS TO EDUCATION OF THE DEAF

For the purpose of diffusing knowledge relative to the education of the deaf, there has been established, through the benefactions of Dr. Alexander Graham Bell, the Volta Bureau, Washington, D. C. Here are collected items of interest in the educational work for the deaf. Under John Hitz, its first superintendent, it received international development. In this way it has been possible to compile and diffuse international statistical information concerning institutions and work for the deaf throughout the world. Its publications are distributed gratuitously or by exchange. Among the publications of the Volta Bureau is an historical account of all the schools for the deaf in the United States, in three volumes, edited by Dr. E. A. Fay. As an incentive to the educational work for the deaf, and as a means of collating the opinions of those interested, there are about thirty-two periodical publications in Europe and more than sixty in America dealing with questions concerning the deaf. The oldest among the latter, "The American Annals of the Deaf", edited by Dr. Fay, is eclectic in its character and as such is the organ of the combined system of instruction. For the diffusion of the oral method there was founded, in 1899, at Philadelphia, a special periodical, "The Association Review", published by the "American Association to Promote the Teaching of Speech to the Deaf". Among the efficient agencies for the promotion of educational work for the deaf must be numbered the meetings, congresses, and conferences of superintendents and teachers of the deaf, and of the deaf themselves. The oldest organization of the kind is the "Convention of American Instructors of the Deaf" which met for the first time in New York in 1850, and for the sixteenth time in 1901, at the Le Couteulx, St. Mary's Institution for the Improved Instruction of Deaf Mutes, Buffalo, as the guests of the Sisters of St. Joseph.

There are also annual meetings of the "Association to Promote the Teaching of Speech to the Deaf"; meetings of principals and of the Department of Special Education of the National Association of American Teachers. At the invitation of the Right Rev. D. J. O'Connell, Rector of the Catholic University of America, all persons interested in the education of Catholic deaf-mutes met in July, 1907, at Milwaukee, simultaneously with the Catholic Educational Association, and organized the Catholic Deaf-Mute Conference. The conference is a powerful factor in enlisting the cooperation of bishops, priests, and laymen in ameliorating the educational condition of the Catholic deaf. The deaf themselves, also, at stated times, hold State and national conventions. Such meetings are carried on in the sign language, which, because visible to a large audience, is best adapted for public addresses, sermons, etc. Whenever at these meetings the deaf touch upon educational topics, they take occasion to manifest their strong protest against pure oralism in the schools, and their unequivocal adherence to the sign-language and the combined system of education. In the United States deaf-mutes are entitled to a share in the school fund, and special boarding and day schools are provided for them. Most of the institutions are controlled by trustees appointed by the State. The term of instruction is from seven to twelve years.

ACTUAL CONDITIONS

According to the subjoined statistics, compiled from the "American Annals of the Deaf" for 1907, there are 60 public State schools, 60 public day-schools, and 17 denominational and private schools, making in all 139 schools for the deaf in the United States, having an attendance of 11,648 pupils — 6317 boys and 5331 girls — 1552 instructors — 471 men and 1081 women. Out of the total number of 139 schools for the deaf, there are 13 Catholic schools with the following enrolment: St. Joseph's School for the Deaf, Oakland, California, 39; Ephpheta School for the Deaf, Chicago, Illinois, 72; Institute of the Holy Rosary, Chincuba, Louisiana, 37; St. Francis Xavier's School, Baltimore, Maryland, 35; Boston School for the Deaf, Randolph, Massachusetts, 93; Mater Boni Consilii School, St. Louis, Missouri, 40; St. Joseph's School, Longwood, Missouri, 20; Notre Dame School, Cincinnati, Ohio, 12; St. John's Institute, St. Francis, Wisconsin, 71; St. Joseph's Schools, 3, New York City, 417; Le Couteulx, St. Mary's School, Buffalo, New York, 176 — making in all 1002 deaf pupils in Catholic schools. It will be noticed that, in the four Catholic schools for the deaf in the State of New York, which has a deaf population of about 10,000, there are 593 children cared for; and that, in nine schools scattered throughout the remaining portion of the United States, where there is a deaf population eight times as great as that of the State of New York, only 409 are provided for. If all the States were as generous as New York in caring for its deaf children, there should be, if adequate facilities were provided, 4744 children in Catholic schools for the deaf outside of the State of New York.

With the exception of the New York institutions for the deaf, the other Catholic institutions are almost entirely dependent upon the charity of religious sisterhoods. Pupils of all denominations are admitted, the only requirements for admission being a sound mind and good morals. Good work has been done by these devoted sisters for Church and State, and their graduates are respected and self-supporting citizens; but, as they carry on their schools with little support from without, the number of pupils is necessarily small. The pupils are for the most part girls, and, because there is no male community in the United States, as there is in Canada and Europe, to take charge of the deaf-mute boys, these are obliged, with very few exceptions, to attend State or public day-schools.

The celebrated school for the deaf at Cabra, near Dublin, Ireland, has two departments. The St. Joseph's School for boys is under the care of Christian Brothers and the St. Mary's School for girls is in charge of Dominican nuns. It was established in the year 1846 by Archbishop Murray of Dublin. The patrons of the institution are the archbishops and bishops of Ireland, the president of the management being the Archbishop of Dublin. Without government grant, the school has attained a foremost rank among educational institutions for the deaf. According to the report for May 1900, there were 518 pupila under instruction, — 260 boys and 258 girls. Industrial training suited to the age and capacity of the children, and so necessary for the deaf, forms an important part in the educational system of the school.

The institutions for the deaf in the United States, during the last decade, show a marked increase in the number of day-schools. This is due to the strong influence of the defenders of the oral method, who, for their purpose, consider such schools superior to boarding-schools. The conscientious duty of Catholic parents to withdraw their afflicted children from State boarding-schools that have proved so dangerous to faith, has also influenced the establishment of day-schools. Until boarding-schools are provided, the day-school, notwithstanding its many inconveniences, is preferable for the Catholic deaf-mute child, so that it may not be deprived of religious home influence. Until 1870, the schools for the deaf established in the United States were almost entirely boarding-schools.

DEAF-BLIND

There are some individuals who are not only deaf but also blind, and not a few who are deaf, mute, and blind. Wonderful results have been produced in the education of this afflicted class during the last half-century, as is evidenced in the case of Laura Bridgeman, taught by Dr. Howe; Helen A. Keller, educated by Miss Annie Sullivan; Clarence Selby, poet and author, taught by Sister Dosithea of the Le Couteulx, St. Mary's Institution, Buffalo, New York, and Lottie Sullivan, educated by Mrs. G. W. Veditz of the Colorado School, and instructed for her first Holy Communion by the Sisters of St. Joseph in St. Louis. About forty more remarkable cases are known in the United States and Canada (see "American Annals of the Deaf", June, 1900). It is evident that a teacher of this class must be strong in the power of inventing means for the attaining of results, and of utilizing the unimpaired faculties as indirect ways of communication between the imprisoned soul and the outer world. Usually they are taught the manual alphabet, and made to understand that objects have names, and that by these names, recognized in raised print or by spelling on the fingers, objects can be designated. So delicate is their sense of touch that, like Helen Keller, they can, by feeling the movements of the vocal organs in the production of speech, be taught to speak and even to read the speech of others.

MANUAL ALPHABETS

Venerable Bede (op. cit.) describes finger alphabets. Monks under rigid rules of silence often made use of them. Rosellius, a Florentine monk, in his "Thesaurus Artificiosæ Memoriæ" (1579), figures three one-hand alphabets which, with minor differences, were used by Bonet and Hervas y Panduro. The first alphabet used in teaching spoken and written language to the deaf was the Spanish one-hand alphabet of Rosellius. "The happy thought of this adaptation", says J. C. Gordon, "is attributed to the pious and learned monk, Pedro Ponce de Leon" (1520-1584). The two-handed alphabet, used in Great Britain, was in use centuries ago among the school-boys of Spain, France, and England. Manual alphabets have nothing to do with "signs" or the "sign-language". They constitute a manner of writing language by spelling words on the fingers. As a means of intercourse with the deaf, they are preferable to writing on paper, being more convenient and rapid.

For the sake of promoting the welfare of thousands of deaf persons, it is recommended to hearing persons to master this art, which is easily acquired.

STATISTICS

According to the United States Special Census Report for 1900, there are in Continental United States 89,287 persons with seriously impaired powers of hearing. Of these 2772 are blind-deaf, 37,426 are totally and 51,861 partially deaf; 51,871 became deaf under the age of 20 and 37,416 in adult life; 46,915 are males and 42,372 females; 84,361 are white, and 4926 coloured.

There are on an average 1175 deaf to the 1,000,000 population in Continental United States. Considering that there are in this territory probably 15,000,000 Catholics, it follows that, if conditions and causes are uniform, there are 17,625 Catholic deaf — 10,272 under the age of 20 and 7353 adults. Since deaf-mutism is common among the poor, it is probable that the number of Catholic deaf is much larger. The statistics for the schools for the deaf throughout the world may be tabulated as follows: —

Reports received from fifty-three State schools in the United States, having an aggregate attendance of 10,124 pupils, show the values of the grounds and buildings to be $13,370,576; expenditure for grounds and buildings, $605,027; expenditure for salaries and other expenses, $2,556,459, making a total expenditure of $3,161,486, or $312 average cost per capita.

Reports from forty-three public day-schools show expenditures for salaries and other expenses to be $96,014 for 788 pupils, or an average cost per capita of $122. Reports from three denominational and private schools show an aggregate expenditure of $20,649 for 135 pupils, that is to say, an average cost per capita of $152. The following tables give the statistics for the United States: —

American Annals of the Deaf, ed. FAY; The Association Review and The Reports of Summer Meetings, published by the American Association to Promote the Teaching of Speech to the Deaf; History of the American Schools for the Deaf, 3 vols., ed. FAY (Washington, 1893); VOLTA BUREAU (Washington), International Reports, Report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education (Washington, 1906); GORDON, Education of the Deaf, Notes and Observations (Washington, 1892). and also for manual alphabets; Cyclopedia of Education (New York, 1877); FERRERI, The American Institutions for the Education of the Deaf, tr. in the Association Review; GREEN, Vox Oculis Subjecta (London, 1783); Facts and Opinions Relating to the Deaf (London, 1888); MONROE, Bibliography of Education (New York, 1897).

F. A. MOELLER.

Edward III

King of England (1312-77), eldest son of Edward II and Isabella, daughter of Philip IV of France; born at Windsor Castle, 13 Nov., 1312; died at Sheen, 21 June, 1377. He succeeded to the throne in his fifteenth year through the deposition of his father in January, 1327, Edward II being forced to agree to his own deposition, as the son refused to accept the crown without his father's consent. His marriage to Philippa, daughter of the Count of Hainault, took place at York, 24 January, 1328. In person Edward was graceful, strong, and active; he was fond of hunting, hawking, and all knightly pastimes, especially war. Ambition seems the most prominent point in his character, and his life, characterized throughout by selfishness and extravagance, was spoilt in later years by indulgence in a shameful passion; As a king, though he won great renown by his wars, he seems to have cared neither to maintain the royal prerogatives nor to follow any policy which would benefit his people.

For the first four years of his reign all power was in the hands of the queen-mother and Mortimer, and not till their overthrow in November, 1331, can Edward be said to have begun to rule. His first warlike experience was inglorious. In 1327 the Scots, led by Robert Bruce, bent on recovering their independence, invaded the North of England. Edward marched to meet them; but so quick and active were the Scots that Edward marched from York to Durham without gaining any definite news of their position, and, when he tried to cut them off and force them to fight, was completely outmanœuvred by them. The "Shameful Peace" of Northampton, made in 1328, by which Scotland's independence was again recognized, was one of the causes which brought about the downfall of Mortimer and Isabella. Edward renewed his struggle with Scotland in 1333, supporting Edward Baliol in an attempt on the Scottish throne. He defeated the Scots under Sir Archibald Douglas at Halidon Hill, and set Baliol on the throne, But the Scots quickly expelled Baliol, and, though Edward restored him, the quarrel with France prevented Edward from continuing the struggle. Further contests with Scotland took place during the Crécy campaign, when David Bruce, after securing his rightful place as king, took advantage of Edward's absence in France to invade England, only to be defeated and captured at Neville's Cross, October, 1346. David remained a prisoner for eleven years, but the Scottish raids continued. In 1355 the Scots took Berwick; Edward retook it in the following year, but, though he ravaged the Lothians in the campaign known as "Burnt Candlemas", he was unable to bring the Scots to terms. When David was released, in 1357, and found himself unable to pay the stipulated ransom, he agreed to make Edward heir to the Scottish throne. But David died, in 1371, and left Edward in a position which prevented him from prosecuting his claim or interfering with Scotland's independence.

Partly caused by the war with Scotland in 1333 and 1334 was the great war between England and France known as the Hundred Years War. The Scots had been helped by money from Philip VI of France, and Edward's anger at this was increased through the presence at his court of a French exile, Robert of Artois, who did all in his power to stir up enmity between the English and the French kings. Edward and Philip had been rival claimants for the French throne in 1328, and after Philip had been chosen king there was much dispute over the homage owed by Edward for his French fiefs. Philip, too, was anxious to be king over all France, a claim which involved the annexation of Guienne and Gascony, the parts still held by England. Thus personal and national rivalry combined to cause war. Edward's personal share in the war which lasted from 1338 to l360 was a distinguished one. The first campaigns, however, were more remarkable for the concessions won by Parliament out of the king's needs than for successes in battle. By the end of 1339 he had agreed not to take a tallage of any kind without the consent of Parliament; and in 1341, to obtain further supplies, he submitted to his accounts being audited by a board chosen in Parliament, and promised not to choose ministers without the consent of his council. But, having received the money, Edward shamefully broke his promises, saying that he had "dissembled in order to avoid greater perils". The campaign of 1340 is noted for Edward's naval victory at Sluys over a fleet of five hundred French ships which attempted to prevent his landing; and this, taken with his victory off Winchelsea, in 1350, over the Spanish fleet, goes Some way towards justifying his claim to the sovereignty of the seas.

The next campaign in which Edward took an important part was that of 1346. The Earl of Derby had been appointed to command in Gascony, and in 1346 Edward was about to lead an army to help him, when he was persuaded to attack, instead, the unprotected northern part of France. Landing near Cherbourg, he marched through Normandy, doing as much mischief as he could, and advanced almost to Paris. Then, crossing the Seine, he retreated towards Calais, pursued closely by Philip; and at Crécy, 24 August, he won a complete victory over the French force. Continuing to Calais, he began a lengthy siege which ended in the surrender of the town, August, 1347. Truces frequently signed after this were as frequently broken till open war broke out again in 1355. Edward himself had small part in the warfare which followed till the campaign of 1359-60, when, after trying to take Reims, he concluded a treaty with the regent of France at Brétigny, 8 May, 1360, by which all the ancient province of Aquitaine with Calais, Guines, and Ponthieu was ceded to him, and he renounced his claim to the French crown and to all French provinces except Brittany. The period between 1347 and 1355 was remarkable for the Black Death, a plague which in England swept off about half the people. Decrease in population caused increase in labourers' wages. And in 1350 the king attempted to deal with the difficulty by proclaiming that labourers must work for the same wages as before the plague, under penalty fixed by statute. (See Gasquet, The Black Death, new ed., London, 1908.)

Ecclesiastically, Edward's reign was marked by some legislation directed against the pope. The difficulties were caused partly by the heavy taxation levied by the pope on the clergy, and partly by the appointment of foreigners to English benefices by the pope; while the irritation of Englishmen at these grievances was increased by the pope's residence at Avignon, under the influence of the French king. In 1351 the Statute of Provisors was passed. The king had, in 1344, complained to the pope against reservations and provisions by which English benefices were given to foreigners, and the rights of patrons were defeated; and this proving ineffectual, the statute now made all who procured papal provisions for benefices liable to fine and imprisonment; But the statute can hardly have benefited patrons, for preferments filled by provisions were declared forfeit to the Crown for that turn. In 1353, by the Statute of Præmunire, all subjects of the king were forbidden to plead in a foreign court in matters which the King's Court could decide, and in 1365 the papal courts were expressly included under this. Urban V in 1366 demanded the annual tribute promised by King John, which was then thirty-three years in arrear; but, on Parliament refusing to pay, nothing more was heard of the claim.

The last years of Edward's reign were a time of failure and disappointment. In France he had lost, by 1374, all possessions but Calais, Bordeaux, and Bayonne; at Sea the English were badly beaten by the Spaniards in 1372; the king himself after the death of his wife, in 1369, was completely under the influence of Alice Perrers; the court became more extravagant than before, and ministers were suspected of corruption, The Commons, supported by the Prince of Wales and William of Wykeham, attacked some of these evils in the "Good Parliament" of 1376. Lord Latimer, the king's chamberlain, and Richard Lyons, his financial agent, were impeached and imprisoned; and though Edward sent a message begging Parliament to deal gently with Alice Perrers for the sake of his love and his honour, she was banished from court. But the death of the Black Prince immediately afterwards was a great blow to the Commons. John of Gaunt was able, on Parliament's dismissal, to recall the impeached ministers, and by Edward's wish Alice Perrers returned. The struggle between the anti-ecclesiastical party, led by John of Gaunt, in alliance with John Wyclif, and the clergy, led by William of Wykeham, is scarcely connected with Edward personally, except in so far as this and other evils were due to Edward's neglect of the affairs of his kingdom. Discontent and conflicts at home, and failure abroad brought his reign to a close. He died deserted by all except one priest who attended him out of compassion. He was buried in Westminster Abbey.

ORIGINAL SOURCES. — For early years, Annales Paulini and BRIDLINGTON in Chronicles of Edward I. and II. in R. S. (London, 1882-3). — For general history of reign, ADAM OF MURIMUTH in R. S. (London, 1889); ROBERT OF AVESBURY in R. S., 1889; Eulogium in R. S., III, 1863; Chronicon Anqliœ in R. S., 1874; WALSINGHAM, Historia Anglicana in R. S., I, 1863. — For French wars, Chronique de Froissart (Société de l'Histoire de France, 1869-99); POLAIN (ed.), tr. adapted Mc Caulay ed. (London, 1893); Chroniques de Jean le Bel (Brussels, 1863). For Scottish wars, Chronicon de Lanercost (Edinburgh, 1839).

MODERN WORKS. — STUBBS, Constitutional History of England (3rd ed.), II, 392-461; HUNT in Dict. Nat. Biog., s. v.; LONGMAN, History of Edward III (London, 1869); WARBURTON, Edward III in Epochs of Modern Hist. (5th ed., 1892); ASHLEY, Edward III and his Wars in Engl. Hist. from Contemp. Writers (London, 1887); WYATT-DAVIES in History of England for Catholic Schools (London, 1903), 138-40, has a good summary of ecclesiastical history; and a useful bibliography may be found in the Annual Report of American Historical Association for 1900, I, 581-3.

THOMAS WILLIAMS.

St. Edward the Confessor

King of England, born in 1003; died 5 January, 1066. He was the son of Ethelred II and Emma, daughter of Duke Richard of Normandy, being thus half-brother to King Edmund Ironside, Ethelred's son by his first wife, and to King Hardicanute, Emma's son by her second marriage with Canute. When hardly ten years old he was sent with his brother Alfred into Normandy to be brought up at the court of the duke his uncle, the Danes having gained the mastery in England. Thus he spent the best years of his life in exile, the crown having been settled by Canute, with Emma's consent, upon his own offspring by her. Early misfortune thus taught Edward the folly of ambition, and he grew up in innocence, delighting chiefly in assisting at Mass and the church offices, and in association with religious, whilst not disdaining the pleasures of the chase, or recreations suited to his station. Upon Canute's death in 1035 his illegitimate son, Harold, seized the throne, Hardicanute being then in Denmark, and Edward and his brother Alfred were persuaded to make an attempt to gain the crown, which resulted in the cruel death of Alfred who had fallen into Harold's hands, whilst Edward was obliged to return to Normandy. On Hardicanute's sudden death in 1042, Edward was called by acclamation to the throne at the age of about forty, being welcomed even by the Danish settlers owing to his gentle saintly character. His reign was one of almost unbroken peace, the threatened invasion of Canute's son, Sweyn of Norway, being averted by the opportune attack on him by Sweyn of Denmark; and the internal difficulties occasioned by the ambition of Earl Godwin and his sons being settled without bloodshed by Edward's own gentleness and prudence. He undertook no wars except to repel an inroad of the Welsh, and to assist Malcolm III of Scotland against Macbeth, the usurper of his throne. Being devoid of personal ambition, Edward's one aim was the welfare of his people. He remitted the odious "Danegelt", which had needlessly continued to be levied; and though profuse in alms to the poor and for religious purposes, he made his own royal patrimony suffice without imposing taxes. Such was the contentment caused by "the good St. Edward's laws", that their enactment was repeatedly demanded by later generations, when they felt themselves oppressed.

Yielding to the entreaty of his nobles, he accepted as his consort the virtuous Editha, Earl Godwin's daughter. Having, however, made a vow of chastity, he first required her agreement to live with him only as a sister. As he could not leave his kingdom without injury to his people, the making of a pilgrimage to St. Peter's tomb, to which he had bound himself, was commuted by the pope into the rebuilding at Westminster of St. Peter's abbey, the dedication of which took place but a week before his death, and in which he was buried. St. Edward was the first King of England to touch for the "king's evil", many sufferers from the disease were cured by him. He was canonized by Alexander III in 1161. His feast is kept on the 13th of October, his incorrupt body having been solemnly translated on that day in 1163 by St. Thomas of Canterbury in the presence of King Henry II.

G.E. PHILLIPS

St. Edward the Martyr

King of England, son to Edgar the Peaceful, and uncle to St. Edward the Confessor; b. about 962; d. 18 March, 979. His accession to the throne on his father's death, in 975, was opposed by a party headed by his stepmother, Queen Elfrida, who was bent on securing the crown for her own son Ethelred, then aged seven, in which she eventually was successful. Edward's claim, however, was supported by St. Dunstan and the clergy and by most of the nobles; and having been acknowledged by the Witan, he was crowned by St. Dunstan. Though only thirteen, the young king had already given promise of high sanctity, and during his brief reign of three years and a half won the affection of his people by his many virtues. His stepmother, who still cherished her treacherous designs, contrived at the last to bring about his death. Whilst hunting in Dorsetshire he happened (18 March, 979) to call at Corfe Castle where she lived. There, whilst drinking on horseback a glass of mead offered him at the castle gate, he was stabbed by an assassin in the bowels. He rode away, but soon fell from his horse, and being dragged by the stirrup was flung into a deep morass, where his body was revealed by a pillar of light. He was buried first at Wareham, whence three years later, his body, having been found entire, was translated to Shaftesbury Abbey by St. Dunstan and Earl Alfere of Mercia, who in Edgar's lifetime had been one of his chief opponents. Many miracles are said to have been obtained through his intercession. Elfrida, struck with repentance for her crimes, built the two monasteries of Wherwell and Ambresbury, in the first of which she ended her days in penance. The violence of St. Edward's end, joined to the fact that the party opposed to him had been that of the irreligious, whilst he himself had ever acted as defender of the Church, obtained for him the title of Martyr, which is given to him in all the old English calendars on 18 March, also in the Roman Martyrology.

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in R. S. (London, 1861); Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, ibid. (London, 1872); Tynemouth and Capgrave, Nova Legenda Angliae (Oxford, 1901); Challoner, Britannia Sancta (London, 1745); Lingard, History of England (London, 1883); Butler, Lives of the Saints (Dublin, 1872); Stanton, Menology of England and Wales (London, 1892).

G.E. Phillips

St. Edwin

(Æduini.)

The first Christian King of Northumbria, born about 585, son of Ælla, King of Deira, the southern division of Northumbria; died 12 October, 633. Upon Ælla's death in 588, the sovereignty over both divisions of Northumbria was usurped by Ethebric of Bernicia, and retained at his death by his son Ethelfrid; Edwin, Ælla's infant son, being compelled until his thirtieth year to wander from one friendly prince to another, in continual danger from Ethelfrid's attempts upon his life. Thus when he was residing with King Redwald of East Anglia, Ethelfrid repeatedly endeavoured to bribe the latter to destroy him. Finally, however, Redwald's refusal to betray his guest led in 616 to a battle, fought upon the river Idle, in which Ethelfrid himself was slain, and Edwin was invited to the throne of Northumbria. On the death of his first wife, Edwin, in 625, asked for the hand of Ethelburga, sister to Eadbald, the Christian King of Kent, expressing his own readiness to embrace Christianity, if upon examination he should find it superior to his own religion. Ethelburga was accompanied to Northumbria by St. Paulinus, one of St. Augustine's fellow missionaries, who thus became its first apostle. By him Edwin was baptized at York in 627, and thenceforth showed himself most zealous for the conversion of his people. In instance of this, Venerable Bede tells how, at their royal villa of Yeverin in Northumberland, the king and queen entertained Paulinus for five weeks, whilst he was occupied from morning to night in instructing and baptizing the crowds that flocked to him. By Edwin's persuasion, moreover, Eorpwald, King of East Anglia, son of his old friend Redwald, was led to become a Christian. In token of his authority over the other kings of Bretwalda, Edwin used to have the tufa (a tuft of feathers on a spear, a military ensign of Roman origin) borne publicly before him, and he received tribute from the Welsh princes. Under him the law was so respected, that it became, as the Venerable Bede attests, a proverb that "a woman might travel through the island with a babe at her breast without fear of insult". St. Edwin was slain on 12 October, 633, in repelling an attack made on him by Penda, the pagan King of Mercia, who, together with the Welsh prince Cadwallon (a Christian only in name), had invaded his dominion. Perishing thus in conflict with the enemies of the Faith, he was regarded as a martyr and as such was allowed by Gregory XIII to be depicted in the English College church at Rome. His head was taken to St. Peter's church at York, which he had begun. His body was conveyed to Whitby. Churches are said to have been dedicated to him at London and at Breve in Somerset.

Plummer ed., Bedae Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum (Oxford, 1896), II, 9-20; Tynemouth and Capgrave, Nova Legenda Angliae (Oxford, 1901); Acta SS., 12 October; Butler, Lives of Saints (Dublin, 1872), 4 Oct.; Lingard, History of England (London, 1883); Stanton, Menology of England and Wales (London, 1892); Raine in Dict. Christ. Biog,, s. v.

G.E. PHILLIPS

Edwy

(Or Eadwig.)

King of the English, eldest son of Edmund and St. Aelfgifu, born about 940; died 959. Though but fifteen years old at the death of his uncle Edred, he was unanimously chosen king, and was crowned at Kingston in January, 956. Too young, almost, to know his own mind, and surrounded by counsellors who pandered to all that was worst in him, his reign was of short duration. Despite the exhortations of St. Dunstan and Archbishop Odo, both of whom fell under his displeasure, he put imposition after imposition upon his subjects. His relatives were removed from court, honest thanes were despoiled of their lands and inheritances, and his grandmother Eadgive, who, by her piety and dignity, had endeared herself to the entire nation, was deprived of all her possessions.

At length, in 957, the Mercians and Northumbrians, who felt his course most keenly, rose against him. Edgar, Edwy's younger brother, withdrew from the court with Archbishop Odo and put himself at the head of the insurgents. Edwy advanced to meet him but was defeated at Gloucester and obliged to flee for his life. Unwilling to prolong a civil war, the men of Kent and Wessex assented to a general meeting of the thanes from North and South to arrange for peace. It was decided that the country should be divided in half at the Thames, and that each brother should rule over a part. To Edwy was allotted the southern portion, and to Edgar the northern. Taught prudence by his reverses, Edwy governed his portion from that time forward with commendable justice and moderation, but died, prematurely, in 959.

His relations with St. Dunstan were not the happiest, and constitute the chief interest of Edwy's career. His opposition to the saint dated from the refusal of the latter to countenance his relations with Ethelgive, by some presumed to be his foster mother, and her daughter. Seeing that he was in disfavour, Dunstan withdrew for a time to his cloister, but the anger of the king, kept alive by Ethelgive, followed him into that sanctuary. The monks were incited to revolt, the abbey was plundered. Dunstan fled and, though hotly pursued, managed to escape to the Continent, where he remained until after Edwy's death. Osbern's story to the effect that Edwy engaged in a general persecution of the monks may, however, be safely rejected, as the revolt against him was not concerned with the dispute between the regulars and seculars which began only after Edwy's death. On the other hand, Edwy's dislike for Dunstan may have helped to impede the saint's monastic reforms.

Anglo-Saxon Chron.; Aethelweard, Mon. Hist. Brit.; Lingard, Hist. Of Eng. (Dublin, 1878); Memorials of Dunstan (Rolls Ser.); Hallam, Middle Ages (London, 1818), II, 264.

STANLEY J. QUINN

Boetius Egan

Archbishop of Tuam, born near Tuam, Ireland, 1734; died near Tuam, 1798. He belonged to a family owning large estates in the County Galway. In the eighteenth century they were reduced in position and means. The penal laws made it then difficult for an Irish Catholic to receive Catholic education at home; nor do we know where young Egan received his early education. Neither is it certain at what age he went to France to be trained for the priesthood. This training he received at the College of Bordeaux, founded by Irish exiles and endowed by Anne of Austria in the seventeenth century. After his ordination he returned to Ireland and laboured in the ministry for some years till, in 1785, he was appointed Bishop of Achonry. Two years later he became Archbishop of Tuam. Accustomed during his whole life in Ireland to the barest toleration of his religion, he joyfully welcomed the Catholic Relief Act of 1793, and hastened to express his gratitude to George III. When Maynooth College was founded in 1795, he was named one of its trustees. One of his last public acts was to sign an address to the Irish viceroy, Lord Camden, condemning the revolutionary associations then in Ireland. In this address George III was described as "the best of kings", and the Irish Parliament as "our enlightened legislature". It was strange language to use of a such a king and of such a parliament.

Burke, Catholic Archbishops of Tuam (Dublin, 1882); Healy, History of Maynooth College (Dublin, 1895).

E.A. D'ALTON

Michael Egan

First bishop of Philadelphia, U.S.A., b. in Ireland, most probably in Galway, in 1761; d. at Philadelphia, 22 July, 1814. Entering the Order of St. Francis he was rapidly advanced to important offices. In his twenty-sixth year he was appointed guardian of St. Isidore's, the house of the Irish Franciscans, at Rome, and held this position for three years, when he was transferred to Ireland. After labouring for several years as a missionary in his native land, he responded to an earnest appeal of the Catholics of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and went to the United States. Though lacking the constitution demanded by the pastoral duties of that pioneer age, and suffering often from sickness, Father Egan's priestly zeal and his eloquence in the pulpit gained universal recognition, and, in April, 1803, he was appointed by Bishop Carroll one of the pastors of St. Mary's church in Philadelphia. On 8 April, 1808, Pope Pius VII erected this city into an episcopal see, with Michael Egan as first bishop. Archbishop Carroll describes him to the Roman authorities as "a man of about fifty who seems endowed with all the qualities to discharge with perfection all the functions of the episcopacy, except that he lacks robust health, greater experience and a greater degree of firmness in his disposition. He is a learned, modest, humble priest who maintains the spirit of his Order in his whole conduct." Owing to the Napoleonic troubles, the papal Bulls did not reach America until the year 1810. On 28 Oct. Bishop Egan was consecrated by Archbishop Carroll in St. Peter's church, Baltimore. His brief episcopate was embittered and his health shattered by the contumacious behaviour of the lay trustees of St. Mary's church, which he had chosen for his cathedral. These trustees, who were tainted with the irreligious notions of the times, without any legal right, and contrary to the canons of the Church, claimed the privilege of electing and deposing their pastors and of adjusting their salaries. This un-Catholic contention that "the laity own the churches and the clergy are their hired servants" disturbed the peace, retarded the progress, and threatened the existence of the Catholic religion in Pennsylvania during two episcopates. Bishop Egan's troubles were aggravated by the insubordination of two Irish priests whom he had admitted to the diocese, James Harold and his better-known nephew, William Vincent Harold. Bishop Egan died worn out by his struggles to maintain his episcopal authority.

JAMES F. LOUGHLIN.

St. Egbert

A Northumbrian monk, born of noble parentage c. 639; d. 729. In his youth he went for the sake of study to Ireland, to a monastery, says the Venerable Bede, "called Rathmelsigi", identified by some with Mellifont in what is now County Louth. There, when in danger of death from pestilence, he prayed for time to do penance, vowing amongst other things to live always in exile from his own country. In consequence he never returned to England, though he lived to the age of ninety, and always fasted rigorously. Having become a priest, he was filled with zeal for the conversion of the still pagan German tribes related to the angles, and would himself have become their apostle, if God had not shown him that his real calling was to other work. It was he, however, who dispatched to Friesland St. Wigbert, St. Willibrord, and other saintly missionaries. St. Egbert's own mission was made known to him by a monk, who, at Melrose, had been a disciple of St. Boisil. Appearing to this monk, St. Boisil sent him to tell Egbert that the Lord willed him instead of preaching to the heathen to go to the monasteries of St. Columba, "because their ploughs were not going straight", in consequence of their schismatic practice in the celebration of Easter. Leaving Ireland therefore in 716, Egbert crossed over to Iona, where the last thirteen years of his life were spent. By his sweetness and humility he induced the Iona monks to relinquish their erroneous mode of computation; in 729 they celebrated Easter with the rest of the Church upon 24 April, although their old rule placed it that year upon an earlier day. On the same day, after saying Mass and joining joyfully in their celebration, the aged Egbert died. Though he is now honoured simply as a confessor, it is probable that St. Egbert was a bishop. By Alcuin he is expressly called antistes and episcopus, and an Irish account of a synod at Birra names him "Egbert Bishop", whilst the term sacerdos used by the Venerable Bede, is sometimes applied by him to bishops.

G. E. PHILLIPS.

Egbert

(ECGBERHT or ECGBRYHT)

Frequently though incorrectly called "First King of England", died A.D. 839. He styled himself in 828 Rex Anglorum, i.e. "Overlord of East Anglia", a title used by Offa fifty years before; in 830 he described himself as "King of the West Saxons and Kentishmen", and in 833 he is "King of the West Saxons". He came of the royal race descended from Ine of Wessex and, owing to his pretensions to power, was exiled by the joint action of Beorhtric of Wessex and Offa of Mercia. The date and duration of his exile are unknown, but he returned in 802 and was chosen King of the West Saxons. In 815 he ravaged Cornwall and conquered the West Welsh who dwelt there. They rebelled in 825, when he again defeated them just in time to repel a Mercian invasion at the battle of Ellandune. Shortly afterwards Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and Essex accepted him as king and East Anglia submitted to his overlordship. War with Mercia again broke out, and ended in Egbert driving out Wiglaf and receiving the submission of that kingdom. In 829 he attacked Northumbria, but the Northumbrians met him at Dore and recognized him as overlord.

Thus for the first time he had united the whole English race under one overlordship, in this way substantially justifying the title King of England, though the idea of territorial kingship had not at that time come into being. Nor was he actually king of all the subject tribes, for the under-kings still ruled, though they were under him as Bretwalda. Thus he restored Wiglaf to the throne of Mercia and made his own son Ethelwulf King of the Kentishmen. In his own Kingdom of Wessex he developed the shire system, carefully regulating the relations of the ealdorman and the bishop to the shire. He also organized the Fyrd, or militia. His ecclesiastical policy was very favourable to the Church, and at the Council of Kingston, in 838, he gave the archbishop assurances of friendship and certain privileges which considerably strengthened the primatial see. In 831 he forced the North Welsh (the people of Wales) to accept his overlordship, but three years later he had to defend his realm from Scandinavian pirates who were invading Sheppey. He beat them off, but they returned in 835 and defeated him at Charmouth in Dorsetshire. In 837 he again had to meet a great fleet of Northmen, who on this occasion were helped by an insurrection of the West Welsh. He, however, won a great victory over the allies at Hengestdune, on the borders of Cornwall, after which he remained at peace till his death.

The chronology of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is often two, and sometimes three, years out with regard to the events of his reign. His coins, which are rare, though specimens from nineteen different mints are known, bear his name and the title Rex, the additions Saxo, "M", or "A" denoting Wessex, Mercia, and East Anglia respectively.

EDWIN BURTON.

Egbert, Archbishop of Trier

Died 8 or 9 December, 993. He belonged to the family of the Counts of Holland. His parents, Count Theodoric I and Countess Hildegarde, sent him to be educated in the Abbey of Egmont, located within their dominions. Egbert is first mentioned in history as head of the imperial chancery, then under Archbishop Willigis of Mainz. Documents of 976 and 977 record him as holding this office. In 977 he was made Archbishop of Trier, which see was vacant by the death of Theodoric. Here he remained till 993. He sought particularly to remove from this great diocese all traces of the ravages caused by the Northmen at the end of the ninth century, and to foster the ecclesiastical reforms that had been progressing since the days of Otto I. He completed the restoration, begun by his predecessor, of the Abbey of S. Maria ad Martyres near Trier. Just outside the city he built the abbey-church of St. Eucharius (St. Mathias), to which Otto II contributed generously. On this occasion the body of St. Celsus was discovered. The abbey itself was richly endowed and its monastic school flourished again. The collegiate church of St. Paulinus, near Trier, was similarly endowed, a regular income for its clergy assured, and a fitting solemnity in Divine Worship made possible. Abbot Hetzel of Mettlach was deposed for conduct unworthy of his vows and station. The monastery was reformed, and its school became an active centre of studious occupations. In MŸnstermaifeld St. Martin's was raised to the dignity of a collegiate church and was correspondingly endowed. From all these regenerated centres, likewise from the Abbeys of Echternach and St. Maximin, that needed no reformation, a beneficent, spiritual, and intellectual influence radiated in all directions through the diocese.

Egbert was an intimate friend of Otto II, and with Willigis of Mainz exerted a wholesome influence over the emperor, whom he accompanied on his journey to Italy in 983. After Otto's death he stood at first for Henry the Wrangler (ZŠnker), but soon went over to Otto III and his mother Theophano. Other evidence of the religious renaissance in the Diocese of Trier is found in the admirable works of ecclesiastical art inspired by Egbert and executed mostly in Trier itself. Among these are several valuable manuscripts: the famous "Codex Egberti", a book of Gospels written at Reichenau and richly adorned with miniatures, now preserved in the city library of Trier; the "Psalterium Egberti", written in 981 and now in the chapter library of Cividale (Italy), to which it was donated by St. Elizabeth of Thuringia (also called the "Codex Gertrudianus", after the Russian Grand Duchess Gertrude, who became its possessor in 1085); the "Codex Epternacensis", which contains also the Four Gospels and is kept in the Gotha library; likewise several Sacramentaries, transcripts from the "Letter Book" (Registrum) of St. Gregory the Great (596-604), etc. The arts of the goldsmith and of the worker in enamel were particularly well cultivated at Trier. Among valuable specimens still extant are: at Trier a portable altar, at Limburg the golden case or covering with richly adorned head of the so-called St. Peter's Staff, once a part of the relics of the Trier cathedral, now in the sacristy of the Franciscan church at Limburg. Egbert was buried in the chapel of St. Andrew, built by him near the cathedral of Trier.

HIRSCH, JahrbŸcher des deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich II. (Berlin, 1862); UHLIRZ, JahrbŸcher des deutschen Reiches unter Otto II. und Otto III. (Berlin, 1902), I; BRAUN, Geschichte der Trierer Buchmalerei (Trier, 1896); KRAUS, Die Miniaturen des Codex Egberti (Freiburg im Br., 1884); SAUERLAND AND HASELOFF, Der Psalter Erzbischofs Egbert, Codex Gertrudianus, in Cividale (Trier, 1901); BEISSEL, Erzbischof Egbert und die byzantinische Frage in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (Freiburg im Br.), XXVII (1884), 260-274, 479-496; LAMPRECHT, Der Bilderschmuck des Codex Egberti und des Codex Epternacensis in JahrbŸcher des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande, LXX (1881), 56-122; WATTENBACH, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (7th ed., Stuttgart, 1904), 408 sq.

J.P. KIRSCH

Egbert, Archbishop of York

Archbishop of York, England, son of Eata, brother of the Northumbrian King Eadbert and cousin of King Ceolwulf, to whom the Venerable Bede dedicated his history; date of birth unknown; d. 19 November, 766. He received his early education in a monastery, and then went to Rome with his brother Ecgred, where he was ordained a deacon. Ecgred died in Rome and Egbert immediately returned to Northumbria. On the resignation of the Bishopric of York by Wilfrid II in 732, King Ceolwulf appointed Egbert his successor. Shortly after his accession Bede wrote a long letter to him advising him to give much time to study and prayer, to ordain more priests for the administration of the sacraments, and to translate the Creed and the Lord's Prayer into the Saxon tongue. He also urged him to strive to obtain the subdivision of many of the dioceses of the North in order that episcopal visitations might be more frequently made. He called his attention to many disorders that were prevalent and particularly urged him to secure the pallium for himself. Acting upon this advice Egbert obtained the pallium from Gregory III at Rome in 735, and thus became the second Archbishop of York, that title having been lost to the Church of York ever since Paulinus had fled into Kent more than a century before. During all those years no one sought for the restoration of that lost dignity, and this neglect was afterwards used as a strong argument in favour of the precedence of Canterbury, when the well-known controversy arose between the two sees. The restoration of the pallium to Egbert increased his power and authority over the Northern bishops, who thus became his suffragans; and his power was still more strengthened in 738 when his brother Eadbert succeeded to the throne of Northumbria. Egbert was thus placed in a position which enabled him to carry out many reforms, and in the performance of these he proved himself a strict disciplinarian; but though stern when correction and rebuke were justly deserved, he was remarkable for his sweetness and gentleness. His pupil Alcuin frequently speaks of his piety and energy and always refers to him in terms of the deepest affection. "He is said to have been the first prelate who possessed a mint at York. He paid great attention to the services and music of his church, introducing the observance of the Hours. He was also a benefactor to the fabric of the minster, bestowing upon his cathedral the choice work of the jeweller and the goldsmith, and giving to it figured curtains of silk of foreign workmanship. He was, in all probability, the first introducer of the parochial system into the North" (Fasti Ebor.). One of his greatest works, perhaps, was the foundation of the famous School of York and its celebrated library. The renown of its masters and scholars soon spread through every Christian country, and noble youths from all parts flocked to York to be taught by the great archbishop. He himself taught divinity, whilst his assistant Albert, who afterwards succeeded him as archbishop, gave lessons in grammar and in the arts and sciences. The fact that the illustrious Alcuin was Egbert's pupil, sheds no little lustre on this famous school. The archbishop's daily work has been thus described by Alcuin himself: "As soon as he was at leisure in the morning, he sent for some young clerks, and sitting on his couch taught them successively till noon, at which time he retired to his private chapel and celebrated Mass. After dinner, at which he ate sparingly, he amused himself with hearing his pupils discuss literary questions in his presence. In the evening he recited with them the service of complin, and then calling them in order, he gave his blessing to each as they knelt in succession at his feet" (Mabillon, Acta SS. Ord. S. B., ad an. 815). Towards the end of his life he left the care of the school to Albert and Alcuin, giving himself more time and opportunity to prepare for his end in peace and tranquillity. In this life of retirement and prayer he was joined by his brother King Eadbert, who voluntarily resigned his throne to enter the monastery in 757. Egbert died before his brother, having ruled over the Diocese of York nearly thirty-four years. He was buried in one of the porches of his cathedral at York. His best-known work is the "De Jure Sacerdotali", a collection of canonical regulations. Extracts from it made in the eleventh century, under the title of "Excerptiones e dictis et canonibus SS. patrum" (Mansi, XII, 411-32; Wilkins, I, 101-12), were long current as a work of Egbert. Among the writings attributed to him are a "Pontificale", or series of special offices for the use of a bishop; a "Dialogus Ecclesiastic¾ Institutionis"; a "Confessionale", and a "PÏnitentiale", both of which were written in the vernacular as well as in Latin. The "Pontificale", an important liturgical text, has been published by the Surtees Society, and his other works may be found in the second volume of Thorpe's "Ancient Laws and Institutes of England". In its present shape the "PÏnitentiale Egberti" (P.L., LXXXIX, 411 sqq.) contains but little from the hand of Egbert, and is a ninth-century Frankish compilation, put together mostly from Halitgar. Similarly, the "Dialogus Eccl. Institutionis" (Mansi, XII, 482-88) is said not to be from Egbert in its present form (see YORK; PENITENTIAL BOOKS; LIBER PONTIFICALIS).

For the writings of EGBERT see P.L., LXXXIX. Cf. RAINE, Fasti Eboracenses (London, 1863), I, 94 sqq.; MABILLON, Acta SS. Ord. S. B. (Venice, 1733), s¾c. III, 548-9, and s¾c. IV, 148-9; IDEM, Annales O.S.B. (Paris, 1703-1739), II, 97-8; Historians of York in Rolls Series, I, 386; SYMEON OF DURHAM, Hist. Eccles. Dunelm. in Rolls Series; HAHN, Bonifaz und Lul (1882), 189 sqq.; WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY, Gesta Pontif. in Rolls Series, 245; SCHNEIDER, Kirchenrechtsquellen (2d ed., 1892), 70; WASSERSCHLEBEN, Bussordnungen (1851), 231 sqq,; SCHMITZ, BussbŸcher (1883), 565 sqq.

G.E. HIND

Egfrid

(Also known as ECFRID, ECHGFRID, EGFERD).

King of Northumbria, b. 650; d. 685. He ascended the Northumbrian throne at Oswy's death in 670, and after defeating the Picts who had thought to impose upon his youth by asserting their independence, turned his attention to Wulphere, King of Mercia, and broke, for a time, the power of the southern kingdom. In 679 new trouble with Mercia arose, and in the course of the subsequent struggle Aelfwin, Egfrid's brother, was slain. Through the intervention of Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, peace was at last restored and in lieu of vengeance Egfrid was prevailed upon to accept the legal wergild (fine) for his brother's death.

Egfrid now consolidated his kingdom by diplomacy, annexation, and treaty, bringing Cumberland, Galloway, and North Lancashire under Northumbrian influence. The desire for conquest, however, had entered his veins, and in 684 he dispatched an expedition into Ireland. The invasion was unsuccessful, but nevertheless was productive of much damage and bitterness to a hospitable, friendly people who had conferred numerous benefits on the Angles and who found violence where they expected gratitude. Disregarding the advice of his counsellors, Egfrid led an expedition against the Picts the next year, and, being decoyed into the mountain passes, was trapped and slain. He was buried by the victors in the cemetery on the isle of Hii or Iona, and his brother succeeded to the Northumbrian throne.

See also ETHELDREDA; ELY.

STANLEY J. QUINN.

Frederick W. von Egloffstein

Born at Aldorf, near Nuremberg, Bavaria, 18 May, 1824; died in New York, 1885. He served in the Prussian army in his early manhood and then emigrated to the United States. Von Egloffstein has been called "The Father of Half-tone Engraving" in the United States, for the reason that he was the first one to employ ruled glass screens, together with photography, to produce engravings. In 1861 he engaged Samuel Sartain, a steel engraver, to rule with wavy lines numbering 250 to the inch glass plates covered with an opaque varnish, and he was engaged in perfecting his experiments in this direction when the Civil War broke out. Abandoning his business, he joined the Union army as a volunteer from New York and was commissioned a colonel. While leading a skirmish in North Carolina, 17 April, 1862, he was severely wounded and retired from the service with the brevet rank of brigadier general. Under the patronage of archbishop McCloskey he then took up his new system of engraving again, and one of Murillo's madonnas and a picture of the facade of St. Francis Xavier's College, New York, were produced by his patented process. Von Egloffstein thought to circumvent counterfeiting, so prevalent at that period, by having bank-notes engraved by his method. Through Baron Gerolt, Prussian Minister at Washington, he was introduced to a number of officials and prominent men, who organized The Heliographic Engraving and Printing Company, with a plant in New York City. There the von Egloffstein process of engraving was carried on in a secret manner. Each group of workmen was taught a part of the work, but no one was permitted to see the whole process. The United States Government refused to adopt von Egloffstein's method of engraving, and the company abandoned the project. The common method of engraving now is by means of ruled glass screens and photography. Glass screens ruled with wavy lines, such as von Egloffstein adopted in 1861, are also being used (1909). Von Egloffstein, as a member of the United States engineering department, later performed valuable services for the Government in the submarine work at Rock Island, Illinois, and in the blasting operations at Hell Gate in New York Harbour.

S. H. HORGAN

Lamoral, Count of Egmont, Prince of Gâvre

Born at the Château de La Hamaide, in Hainault, 18 Nov., 1522; beheaded at Brussels, 5 June, 1568. He was a descendant of one of the oldest families of the Low Countries; his patrimonial castle, near the abbey of the same name, was on the coast of the North Sea, about three miles west of Alkmaar, Holland. In 1538 he went to Spain with his elder brother, Charles, and both took part in the expedition to Algiers in 1541, in which Charles was injured. Charles died the following year. Lamoral succeeded to the title and estates, which, beside those of Holland, comprised the principality of Gâvre, seven or eight baronies, and a number of seigniories. When, in 1544, he married Sabina, Duchess of Bavaria and Countess Palatine of the Rhine, the emperor and the King of the Romans assisted at his wedding. Egmont distinguished himself in various campaigns during the reign of Charles V, who, when he was only twenty-six years of age, invested him with the Order of the Golden Fleece, and appointed him to several confidential missions such as sending him to England to seek the hand of Queen Mary for Philip II. His principal titles to military glory are two battles which he won against the French: the battle of St-Quentin, which was fought through his vehement persuasion (1557), and that of Gravelines, the honour of which is due to him exclusively. As a reward for his services he was nominated by Philip II, in 1599, stadt-holder of the province of Flanders, and a member of the Council of State for the Low Countries.

But these honours did not satisfy Egmont. Though handsome, brave, rich, generous, and popular, still he viewed with jealousy the prominence given Cardinal Granvella, who was in the confidence of the king. He entered a vigorous protest against the proceedings of this minister and clamoured for his removal, going so far as to refuse to sit in the Council of State if Granvella were allowed to remain. His hatred of the king's favourite led him into the plots of William of Orange against the Spanish Government. Later, when religious troubles broke out in Flanders, it was evident that he did not rise to the occasion; he granted the sectarians concessions emphatically disapproved of by the king and assumed a quite equivocal attitude in the matter of the iconoclasts. It is true that he alleged, in excuse, that there were no troops for his disposal and that he was therefore rendered powerless. On the other hand, he refused to take part in the plots against the Government, and when the Duke of Alva arrived in the Netherlands, he would not follow the Prince of Orange into exile, saying that his was a clear conscience. This attitude cost him his life. With the Count of Hoorn he was arrested by the orders of the duke and condemned to death, despite his appeal to the privilege of the Golden Fleece. Both were declared guilty of high treason and condemned to death by the Conseil des Troubles, a court established by the Duke of Alva, and which was his servile instrument. The two friends were beheaded amid universal grief. Egmont met his death with dignity and Christian resignation; he protested to the last moment his devotion to his religion and his king, and to the latter's compassion recommended his wife, who, through the confiscation of his property, was left penniless with the care of eleven children. Egmont had been imprudent, but was guilty of no crime. His death was thenceforth one of the principal grievances of the Low Countries against the Spanish Government.

DE BAVAY, Procès du comte d'Egmont et pièces justificatives (Brussels, 1853); DEVILLERS, Le journal de Nicolas de Landes, procureur général du Comte d'Egmont in Bulletin de la Commission royale d'Histoire (1881), fourth series, IX; JUSTE, Le comte d'Egmont et le comte de Hornes (Brussels, 1862); PRESCOTT, History of Philip II (1855-59).

GODEFROID KURTH

Egoism

(Lat. ego, I, self), the designation given to those ethical systems which hold self-love to be the source of all rational action and the determinant of moral conduct. In a broad use of the term any system might be called egoistic which makes any good of the ego the end and motive of action. The name, however, has been appropriated by usage to those systems which make happiness, pleasure, or personal advantage the sole end of conduct. In one form or another and with various modifications, the principle pervades the theories of the Cyrenaic, Epicurean, Utilitarian, and Evolutionary Schools; and, slightly disguised, it lurks at the bottom of utilitarian altruism. Its typical expression is to be found in Hobbes and Mandeville, while Jeremy Bentham, combining it with the other cognate principle, that pleasure and pain are the only good and evil, formulates it in its full character as egoistic hedonism. Two of Bentham's statements, when taken together, set forth concisely the egoistic doctrine.

"Pleasure is itself a good, nay, setting aside immunity from pain, the only good. Pain is in itself an evil, and indeed without exception, the only evil, or else the words good and evil, have no meaning." (Principles of Morals and Legislation, chap. ix.)

"The search after motives is one of the prominent causes of man's bewilderment in the investigation of the question of morals. But this is a pursuit in which every moment employed is a moment wasted. All motives are absolutely good, no man has ever had, can, or could have a motive different from the pursuit of pleasure or shunning of pain." (Deontology, vol. I, p. 126.)

The undisputed fact that men do experience sentiments of benevolence and perform disinterested actions offers an obvious difficulty to the egoist. Hobbes seeks to evade it by resolving altruistic impulses into personal hopes and fears. Later hedonists, recurring to the principle of the association of ideas, contend that virtue, which at first is pursued only for the pleasure it brings, comes later on, through a confusion of means and end, to be pursued for its own sake. Innumerable analyses have shown that pleasure and pain are not measurable, and still less for estimating the quantity of different pleasures by considering their various dimensions--intensity, duration, nearness, certainty, purity (freedom from pain), fruitfulness--is commonly regarded as a piece of absurdity.

This fundamental postulate of egoistic hedonism is, therefore, fallacious. But a deeper and more pernicious vice of the system lies in its primary principle that self-interest is the only motive of human action. This doctrine reduces all virtue to mere selfish calculation, it outrages our liveliest moral feelings by resolving the highest and noblest impulses into a base pursuit of personal pleasure. To say that man is incapable of acting from any motive other than self-interest is to degrade human nature. Mankind at large understands very clearly that self-interest is one thing and virtue quite another; that self-sacrifice and heroic devotion do exist, and are not vice and immorality; that a worthy action challenges our approbation in proportion to the disinterestedness of the agent. Let it become known that the hero of what we at first considered a brilliant act of self-sacrifice had after all no other motive than to obtain some advantage for himself, and immediately he appears but a vulgar mercenary. As Lecky says: "No Epicurean could avow before a popular audience that the one end of his life was the pursuit of his own happiness without an outburst of indignation and contempt, no man could conscientiously make this--which according to the selfish theory is the only rational and indeed possible motive of action--the deliberate object of all his undertakings without his character becoming despicable and degraded." (European Morals, vol. I, p. 35.) Besides, if the egoistic impulse is made the sole and unconquerable motive of action, it is idle to speak of obligation and duty. Nor can the hedonist, consistently with his theory, claim that he safeguards the pre-eminent value of virtue by recognizing the happiness derivable from it to be the highest form of pleasure. For if one kind of conduct yields this pleasure, while another does not, then evidently there must be some essential difference, unaccounted for in the egoistic and hedonistic theories, between right and wrong conduct, in virtue of which they produce contrary results of happiness and pain for the agent. But moral judgments are not resolvable into estimates of self-interest; and if we commit ourselves to classifying conduct purely by the advantages, in terms of the pleasure and pain, to be reaped from it, we shall be forced to appraise as virtuous actions which the reasonable judgment of men condemns as immoral; while, on the other hand, we shall be compelled to brand as wrong acts of self-sacrifice such as, in all life and literature, challenge the highest honour and reverence.

At the bottom of the errors of egoistic hedonism there lies a truth which this system misinterprets and perverts. However complete and disinterested we may be, we can never strip ourselves of self. The constitution of his nature compels man to seek his good, however he may err in the deliberate choice that he makes among the various goods that solicit his efforts. The end constituted for him by God is to reach that highest good which consists in realizing the moral perfection of his nature. This good is to be sought for its own sake chiefly, and in its train follows happiness as, if the expression may be permitted, an automatic consequence. Hence in pursuing the moral good, I am implicitly pursuing my own happiness. This self-realization is not egoism; for egoism makes self the centre, the beginning and the end of action. On the other hand, the virtuous man sub-ordinates himself to the moral good, which in the last analysis is identified with God. In this sense, as Aristotle points out, the good man may be said to be a self-lover.

For he gives to himself what is most honourable, and the greatest goods, and gratifies the authoritative part of himself, and obeys it in everything. Therefore, he must be a self-lover, after a different manner from the person who is reproached for it, and differing in as great a degree as living in obedience to reason differs from living in obedience to passion, and as desiring the honourable differs from desiring what seems to be advantageous. (Nich. Ethics., Bk. IX, ch. viii, 6, 7.)

When Kant declared that duty must be fulfilled exclusively for duty's sake, with disregard of all considerations of happiness or welfare, he ignored the fact that by annexing happiness as a concomitant of the good the Creator evidently intends that we may legitimately aim at our own happiness, provided we do not invert the order which makes happiness subordinate to the good. Duty is not the be-all and the end-all. It is a means to reach our supreme end and good.

JAMES J. FOX

St. Egwin

Third Bishop of Worcester; date of birth unknown; d. (according to Mabillon) 20 December, 720, though his death may have occurred three years earlier. His fame as founder of the great Abbey of Evesham no doubt tended to the growth of legends which, though mainly founded on facts, render it difficult to reconcile all the details with those of the ascertained history of the period. It appears that either in 692, or a little later, upon the death of Oftfor, second Bishop of Worcester, Egwin, a prince of the Mercian blood royal, who had retired from the world and sought only the seclusion of religious life, was forced by popular acclaim to assume the vacant see. His biographers say that king, clergy, and commonalty all united in demanding his elevation; but the popularity which forced on him this reluctant assumption of the episcopal functions was soon wrecked by his apostolic zeal in their discharge.

The Anglo-Saxon population of the then young diocese had had less than a century in which to become habituated to the restraints of Christian morality; they as yet hardly appreciated the sanctity of Christian marriage, and the struggle of the English Benedictines for the chastity of the priesthood had already fairly begun. At the same time large sections of England were more or less permanently occupied by pagans closely allied in blood to the Anglo-Saxon Christians. Egwin displayed undaunted zeal in his efforts to evangelize the heathen and no less in the enforcement of ecclesiastical discipline. His rigorous policy towards his own flock created a bitter resentment which, as King Ethelred was his friend, could only find vent in accusations addressed to his ecclesiastical superiors. Egwin undertook a pilgrimage to seek vindication from the Roman Pontiff himself. According to a legend, he prepared for his journey by locking shackles on his feet, and throwing the key into the River Avon. While he prayed before the tomb of the Apostles, at Rome, one of his servants brought him this very key — found in the maw of a fish that had just been caught in the Tiber. Egwin then released himself from his self-imposed bonds and straightway obtained from the pope an authoritative release from the load of obloquy which his enemies had striven to fasten upon him.

It was after Egwin's triumphant return from this pilgrimage that the shepherd Eoves came to him with the tale of a miraculous vision by which the Blessed Virgin had signified her will that a new sanctuary should be dedicated to her. Egwin himself went to the spot pointed out by the shepherd (Eoves ham, or "dwelling") and to him also we are told the same vision was vouchsafed. King Ethelred granted him the land thereabouts upon which the famous abbey was founded. As to the precise date of the foundation, although the monastic tradition of later generations set it in 714, recent research points to some year previous to 709. At any rate it was most probably in 709 that Egwin made his second pilgrimage to Rome, this time in the company of Coenred, the successor of Ethelred, and Offa, King of the East Saxons, and it was on this occasion that Pope Constantine granted him the extraordinary privileges by which the Abbey of Evesham was distinguished. One of the last important acts of his episcopate was his participation in the first great Council of Clovesho.

E. MACPHERSON.

Egypt

This subject will be treated under the following main divisions:

I. General Description;

II. Ancient Egyptian History;

III. Ancient Egyptian Religion;

IV. Literary Monuments of Ancient Egypt;

V. The Coptic Church;

VI. Coptic Literature;

VII. Copto-Arabic Literature.

I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The name Egypt proper applies only to the rather narrow valley of the Nile from the Mediterranean, 31° 35' N. latitude, to the First Cataract, at Assuân (Syene), 24° 5' 30" N. latitude, a stretch of about 680 miles by rail. However, from remote antiquity, as now, Egypt held sway over Nubia, reaching by degrees as far as Napata (Gebel Barkal), 18° 30' N. latitude, which, under the eighteenth dynasty, was the southernmost city of the empire -- another stretch of about 590 miles by rail. Distances by water are somewhat greater owing to the winding course of the river. From Napata the Nile continues for a while in the south-west direction which it follows from Abu-Hamed, but soon assumes is ordinary sinuous course to the north, describing two great principle curves -- one to the west down to Wâdi Halfa, just below the second cataract, Soleb being the westernmost point, then another to the east as far as Assiût (Lycopolis), Assuân forming its apex, or easternmost point. As far as Edfu (Appollinopolis Magna) the valley is rather narrow, rarely as much as two or three miles wide. Indeed, "in Lower Nubia the cultivable land area is seldom more than a few hundred yards in width and at not a few points, especially on the west bank, the desert advances clear up to the river bank" (Baedeker, Egypt, 1908, p. 376). The general aspect of the Nubian desert is that of a comparatively low table-land, stony in the north, studded with sandy hills in the south. At Assuân the course of the river is broken by the first cataract, where its waters rush between numberless more or less diminutive islands, the most famous of which is the island of Philæ above and Elephantine in front of Assuân. The cataract, however, has lost much of its grandeur since the building of the great dam which now regulates the supply for the irrigation of the country in time of low water. From Assuân to Edfu (about 48 miles) the banks are so high that even in the annual inundation they are above the level of high water, and consequently remain barren. Near Edfu the valley widens out and becomes wider still in the neighbourhood of Esneh (Latopolis). At Luxor (part of Thebæ) it again narrows for a few miles, but after that it maintains a respectable breadth, averaging between twelve and fifteen miles. At Assuân begin the two high ranges of the Libyan and Arabian deserts, between which the valley extends. The range to the left is somewhat farther from the river, so that most of the towns are built on the western bank.

Near Girgeh (Abydos) begins the Bahr-Yûsef, Joseph's Canal. It was formerly a branch of the Nile; it runs parallel to the main stream at a distance of from 5 to 6 miles along the left bank, and empties into the Fayûm (nome of Arsinoe). One hundred ten miles above Memphis the Libyan mountains bend to the north-west, and then, facing north-east, they draw nearer against to the Nile, thus surrounding a large extent of territory, which of old was know as Te-She, or Lakeland, from the great inland lake frequently mentioned and described by the Greek Moeris. It is still called Fayûm, from the Coptic " piiom, "the sea". This lake once occupied almost the entire basin of the Fayûm, but within the historical period its circumference does not seem to have exceeded 140 miles. It lay 73 feet above the sea level, and was very deep, as shown by its last vestige, the Birket-el-Karûn, which lies 144 feet below the same level (Baedeker, op. cit., p. 186 sq.).

A little before reaching Cairo the Nile flows along the rocky and sandy plateau on which the three best-known pyramids stand. There, too, the two ranges of Arabian and Libyan mountains, which above this point run for many miles close to the river, turn sharply aside in the direction of the north-east and north-west, thus forming a triangle with the Mediterranean shore. The immense alluvial plain thus encompassed was called by the Greeks the Delta, owing to its likeness to the fourth letter of their alphabet (Delta). As soon as the river enters this plain its waters divide into several streams which separately wind their way to the sea and make it a garden of incredible fertility. In ancient times there were seven of these branches, five natural and two artificial. Only two are now of importance for navigation, the Damietta (Tamiathis) and the Rosetta branches, both named for the towns near which they discharge into the sea. It is to be remarked that, as a natural result of the incessant struggle between sea and land the outline of the Delta is even now somewhat indefinite, and was probably much more so in the remote past. The shore is always partly covered with lagoons which move from one place to another. The most extensive of these are now, from east to west, Lake Menzaleh between the ancient Ostium Phatniticum and Ostium Pelusiacum, Lake Borolos (Lacus Buto or Paralus) east and Lake Edkû west of the Rosetta mouth (Ostium Bolbitinum), and Lake Mariût (Mareotis Lacus) south of the narrow strip of land on which Alexandria stands. Between Lake Menzaleh and the Red Sea, on a line running first south, and then south-south-east, are Lake Balah, Lake Timsâh, and the Bitter Lakes (Lacus Amari), now traversed by the Suez Canal. Wâdi Tumilât connects Lake Timsâh with the Delta across the Arabian desert, and forms the natural entrance to Egypt from the Asiatic side. West of the Delta, in a depression of the Libyan Desert, lies the Wâdi Natrûn (Vallis Nitria), famous in early Christian times, under the name of the Desert of Scete, for its Coptic monasteries, four of which exist to this day.

Geology. The low Nubian table-land through which the Nile meanders consists of a red sandstone, belonging to the upper cretaceous formation. It has furnished the Egyptians with an excellent building stone which they have exploited from remote antiquity, especially at Gebel Silsileh (Silsilis), 26 miles south of Edfu, where the sandstone beds, in sharp contrast to their former low level, rise in steep banks overhanging the river, thus offering unusual facilities for quarrying and transporting the stone. Near Edfu the sandstone is replaced by nummulitic limestones (Eocene) of the Tertiary period, which form the bulk of the Libyan desert and a considerable portion of the Arabian desert as well. The Libyan Desert is a level, or almost level, table-land averaging 1000 feet above the sea. On the east it is fringed with craggy cliffs overhanging the valley, while its outward border, running aslant to the north-west, offers here and there deep bays in which lie the oases of Khârgeh and Dâkhleh (Great Oasis), Farâfreh (Tringtheos Oasis), and Siweh (Jupiter Ammon). The oasis of Bahriyeh (Small Oasis), north-east of Farâfreh, lies, on the contrary, in a depression entirely surrounded by the higher plateau. The Fayûm, in fact, is nothing but such an oasis on a larger scale. The plateau itself is waterless and practically without vegetation. Its strata are gently inclined to the north-west, so that the highest level is in the south, near Luxor, where the oldest (lower Eocene) strata appear, and valleys (Bibân-el-Molûk) take the place of the cliffs, undoubtedly for the same reason as in the Arabian desert (see below).

East of the Nile the limestone formation originally presented much the same appearance as in the Libyan counterpart. This appearance, however, was changed by a high (6000 to 7000 feet) range of crystalline rocks (granite, gneiss, diotite, porphyry, etc.) which sprang up along the Red Sea, lifting and tilting both the limestone formation and the sandstone beds (which extend farther north on the eastern than on the western side of the river), thus creating numerous deeply eroded valleys. Some of these run north and south, but most of them slope down to the Nile. The Wâdi Hammâmât (the Rehrnu Valley of the Egyptians) runs almost straight across the desert from Keft (Coptos) on the Nile in the direction of Koseir (Leucos Limên of the Greeks) on the Red Sea. In spite of this the Arabian Desert still preserves its general appearance of a table-land. The open plains, of course, are almost devoid of vegetation, but numerous plants can be seen in the valley after rain, and they thrive in the sheltered ravines among the hills where springs occur. Near Assuân a spur of the eruptive range just mentioned runs in a western direction to the Nile, extending clear across the bed of the river and thus occasioning the so-called first cataract.

The formation of the present Valley of the Nile, in Egypt proper, dates from the Pliocene times, when it first appeared as a fiord into which the water of the Mediterranean Sea flowed at least as far as Keneh (Caenepolis) and perhaps even as far as Esneh (in the older Miocene times, the valley did not exist at all, the Arabian and Libyan deserts forming one continuous table-land). Intimately connected with the formation of the valley are the sands and loams occurring to the south of the pyramids of Gizeh, as is shown by numerous Pliocene fossils they contain (Baedeker, Egypt, p. 1). The silicified wood which abounds in the district of Moghara, west of the Wâdi Natrûn (see above), belongs to the Miocene times, as do also the marine limestones of the Plateau of Cyrenaica, north of the Oasis of Siweh, on the eastern edge of the Arabian Desert, and on the shore of the Gulf of Suez. The so-called petrified forests near Cairo consist of the stems of trees silicified by the action of the siliceous thermal springs which bubbled forth amid the networks of lagoons existing in these parts in Oligocene times. Those forest trees are still more common in the Fayûm, where innumerable bones of extinct terrestrial and marine mammals and reptiles have been found in sands of the same geological age (Baedeker, loc. cit).

Deposits of alabaster are to be found in the neighbourhood of El 'Amerna, where the alabaster quarries of Hetnub were worked by the Egyptians from the time of the Fourth Dynasty. The cultivated plains of the Delta and the Nile valley consist of recent alluvial deposits, ranging from fine sand to the finest silt laid down by the water of the annual inundation. Under these lie coarser yellowish sands and gravels of the Pleistocene age, which here and there reach the surface in the Delta as islands of sandy waste among the rich cultivation of the surrounding country (Baedeker, Egypt, p. xlix). Gold-bearing quartz and iron ore are plentiful in the eruptive range of the eastern desert both in Nubia and in Egypt, and gold mines were exploited there by the pharaohs. No workings of iron ore have been found (Breasted, "History of the Ancient Egyptians", 122, 142, 154, 155).

Flora and Agriculture. Since the remotest antiquity Egypt has been famous for its fertility. The black soil, really a gift of the Nile, annually enriched by a fresh layer of silt, requires but little care in tilling and plowing. Hence the primitive character of the agricultural implements -- the plough, in particular, which is precisely the same now as it was 5000 years ago, a pole to which is fastened a piece of wood bent inward at an acute angle and shod, at least in later periods, with a three-pronged piece of iron. There is no trace of large forests similar to our own ever having covered the valley proper of the Nile in quaternary times, much less the Libyan or Arabian ranges, but the Delta still has, and may have had in the past, large groves of palm trees. So far as we can judge from the paintings of the early tombs, the whole cultivatable land was laid out in fields, orchards, or gardens. The fields gave rich crops of wheat, barley, millet (Sorghum vulgare), flax, lentils, peas, and beans. The orchards were stocked with trees, which, as a rule, were planted as much for the shade the afforded as for their refreshing fruit. There were palms of two species, the ordinary date-palm and the dûm-palm, the latter growing in Upper Egypt only. Oranges and lemons were peculiar to Lower Egypt, while sycamores, tamarisks, acacias of various kinds, the vine, the pomegranate, and the olive were common; oleanders, roses, carnations and geraniums were, as they still are, the principal decorative plants. In the kitchen gardens grew cabbages, cucumbers, melons, and garlic, which the Israelites seem to have regretted no less than the excellent fish (Num., vi, 5) and the fat fleshpots (Ex., xvi, 3) of the land of bondage. Reeds of various kinds grew abundantly in the marshes of Lower Egypt especially; the most important reed was the papyrus; its stalks served to make boats (Is., xvii, 2), ropes, sandals, clothes, and baskets. It was in such a basket that Moses was put by his mother and exposed in the flags by the river brink (Ex., ii, 3). But it was especially as a writing material that the papyrus became famous. Its large, fibrous stalks, being first stripped of their rind, were sliced length-wise. Two layers of such slices were disposed at right angles to one another and fastened with a sort of glue under some pressure, and the sheet of paper was ready for use as soon as it dried. When written upon the sheet was rolled up with the writing inside, and the title of contents was then added on the back end of it. In ancient Egypt the tuft of papyrus was the coat of arms or symbol of the Northern Kingdom. This reed, so common in Egypt up to the first centuries of our era, has now completely disappeared from that country, very likely on account of the high tax which the Roman emperors imposed on its cultivation. It exists still, however, on the upper course of the Nile, and, according to Bruce, the Abyssinians still make boats of its stalks. Among the many other aquatic plants must be mentioned the lotus, a water-lily, of which two species, the Castalia scutifolia (Nymphæa coerulea), with blue flowers, and the Castalia mystica (Nymphæ lotus), with white blossoms, are often found figured on Egyptian monuments, particularly on columns. The flower of the lotus was the emblem of Upper Egypt, as the tuft of papyrus was of Lower Egypt.

The inundation of the Nile is of utmost importance to Egypt; it is no exaggeration to say that but for its annual recurrence the rich valley would soon become a desert similar to those of Libya and Arabia. The overflow is due principally to the torrents of rain that fall almost uninterruptedly in Abyssinia during the four months of summer and swell the Blue Nile (Astapus), which discharges into the Nile proper, or White Nile, at Khartûm. The rise of the Nile begins in Egypt a few days before the summer solstice, that is between the 10th and 20th of June; but the inundation does not begin until fully two months later. It reaches its maximum height about the autumnal equinox when it begins gradually to subside until the vernal equinox, so that the whole process of inundation lasts about nine months. The maximum height of the water varies in different places, decreasing as the area covered by the inundation increases. The mean difference between the highest and lowest stages of the river is 21 feet at Khartûm, 20 feet at Wâdi Halfa, 23 feet at Asûan, 22 feet at Asiût, and 22 feet at Minieh. Below the last-names point controlling works now prevent the rise of the river. (Baedeker, Egypt, p. xlvi.) At Cairo to-day the average rise is 16 feet. Some twenty-five years ago it used to be 25 feet at Cairo, 24 feet at Rosetta. When stated generally the height of the inundation must be understood as the height of the nilometre on the island of Rôdah, near Cairo (close by the ancient Babylon. Formerly, a rise of 18 to 20 feet was poor, 20 to 24 insufficient, 24 to 27 good, and 27 and above too much. For seven years, A. H. 475-464 (A.D. 1065-1072) the inundation failed altogether. The long duration of the overflow is due to the fact that is it controlled by artificial means without which it would undoubtedly prove as detrimental as it is beneficial. The only part left to nature is the process of infiltration which is due to the pressure of the water on the banks and is favoured by the porous nature of the soil, also by the fact that the subsoil, like the surface of the valley, gently slopes down to the mountains. It is only when this natural process is completed that the river is ready to overflow its banks, and then begins man's work. The sluices of the canals are opened, and the waters are led first to the higher level lands nearer the banks, then to the lower lands, for in its general configuration the soil to be submerged, as the subsoil, is convex -- not concave as in the case of ordinary rivers. This is brought about by building earthen dykes across the canals and the fields; the dyke is removed when the preceding tract has been sufficiently irrigated. The reverse is done when the river begins to fall, and the waters are kept in the remotest parts of the valley as high as possible above the level of the river, and they are let out slowly so as to secure irrigation for the low-water months, March to June. This process, however, is not always possible, either because the irrigation is insufficient or because the canals and sluices are not kept in good condition. The fellaheen (tillers of the soil) then have to raise the water from the river, the canals, or the numerous wells fed by natural infiltration, so as to water their fields.

Two machines chiefly are used for this purpose; the sâkyeh and the shâdûf. The sâkyeh consist of two cog-wheels working at right angles to each other. The perpendicular wheel carries an endless chain, to which are attached leathern, wooden, or clay buckets. As the wheel turns the buckets are dipped in the water and filled, when they are lifted and emptied into a channel which carries the water into the fields. These machines are worked by asses or buffaloes in Egypt and by camels in Nubia. The shâdûf is a roughly made pair of gigantic scales in which the trays are replaced by a bucket on one end and a stone on the other, the stone being a little more than the weight of the bucket when filled. A man stands on the bank and, pulling on the rope to which the bucket is attached, submerges the latter, then letting go, the weight of the stone pulls the bucket out, when it can be emptied into the proper channel. In the Lower Delta, where the level of the water in the canals remains nearly the same, they use a wooden wheel called tâbût, which raises the water by means of numerous compartments in the hollow felloes. Such methods, however, while absorbing all the energies of the population fro most of the year, are far from exhausting the irrigation power supplied by the Nile during inundation, nine-tweflths of the annual outpour being contributed during the three months of maximum rise. It allows one crop only for the irrigated lands, and leaves many districts desert-like for lack of water. The pharaohs of the twelfth dynasty, it seems, tried partly to obviate these defects by using the natural lake of the Fayûm as a reservoir where the surplus of the inundation waters were stored during their highest rise, which allowed them to double the volume of the river below the Fayûm during the three months of low Nile. The immense waterworks necessitated by the undertaking, at the point where the lake was most commonly visited by foreigners, gave the impression that the lake itself was an artificial excavation, as reported by classic geographers and travellers.

This great enterprise was not resumed until the close of the last century, when a series of gigantic dams at different points on the Nile was planned by the Egyptian Government; these, in part at least, have been completed. The Barrage du Nil (about twelve miles below Cairo) was completed in 1890. It extends across the Rosetta and Damietta branches and two of the principal canals of the Delta, thus ensuring constant navigation on the Rosetta branch and perennial irrigation through most of the Delta. The dam of Assiût, constructed 1898-1902, regulates the amount of water in the Ibrâhimieh Canal, and thus insures the irrigation of the provinces of Assiût, Minieh, Beni-Suef (10 miles east of the Heracleopolis Magna), and through Bahr-Yûsef, of the Fayûm. Finally the dam of Assuân, also completed in 1902, below the island of Philæ, maintains such a supply of water in the canals of Lower and Middle Egypt that upwards of 500,000 acres have been added to the area of cultivatable land in the summer. This dam, the largest structure of the kind in the world, rises 130 feet above the foundation, and dams up the water of the Nile to a height of 83 feet, thus forming a lake of 234,000,000,000 gallons. Its length is 2150 yards; its width 98 feet at the bottom, and 23 feet at the top. The Egyptian government has lately decided to raise it 23 feet, which will more than double the huge reservoir's capacity and will afford irrigation for about 930,000 acres of land now lying waste in Upper Egypt (Baedeker, Egypt, p. 365). In addition to these gigantic waterworks, the number and capacity of the canals have been considerably increased, thus allowing the inundation waters to reach further on the outskirts of the desert; to this, probably, is due the fact that the average level of high waters is lower than it used to be -- 25 feet at Asuân instead of 40, although for the region below Minieh this change is also to be explained by the manipulation of the controlling waterworks (Baedeker, Egypt, p. lxvi).

II. ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HISTORY

Chronology. The ancient Egyptians practically had only one kind of year: a vague year consisting of twelve months, each of thirty days, and five supplementary days which were intercalated between the thirtieth day of the last month of the year just elapsed and the first day of the first month of the following year. Technically, those five days did not belong to the year; the Egyptians always said the "year and the five days to be found thereon". The five extra days were sacred to Osiris, Horus, Set, Isis, and Nephthys. They were days of bad omen. The year was divided into three periods, or seasons, of four months each: the inundation (Egyptian Echut, or Echet), the sowing-time (Proyet), and the harvest (Somu). In ancient times months had no special names, they were simply designated by ordinal numbers in each season, as "the first month of the inundation" and so on. Each month (as also the decades and hours), however, had as a patron one of the divinities who feast occurred during that month, and the patrons, it seems, varied according to time and locality. At a rather later period the names of those patrons passed over to the months themselves, hence the names transmitted to us by the classic writers (see table below). Each month was divided into three decades (the Egyptians do not seem to have ever used, or even known, the week of seven days); each day into 24 hours, 12 hours of actual day time and 12 hours of actual night time. The hours of day and night, consequently, were not always of the same length. The sixth hour of night corresponded to midnight, and the sixth hour of day to noon. There were further subdivisions of time, but their relation to the hour is unknown. The day most likely began with the first day-time hour; some, however, think it began with the first hour of night.

The year began with the first day of Thoth (Inundation I) which, of course, was supposed to coincide with the first rise of the river. The first of Thoth was also supposed to coincide with the day of the heliacal rising of Sirius, which was called New Year's Day and celebrated as such each year with a great festival. Isis, typified by Sirius, her star, was believed to bring with the inundation a promise of plenty for the new year; this takes us back to the first centuries of the fifth millennium, when the summer solstice, which precedes by a few days only the inundation, actually coincided with the heliacal rising of Sirius. We know, besides, from the classical writers that the latter phenomenon occurred on the 19th or 20th of July (according to the Julian calendar), which points to Memphis as the home of the Egyptian Calendar. The Egyptians, however, must have perceived in the course of time (if they had not foreseen it) that their calendar of 365 days would not, as they evidently believed at first, bring back the seasons every years at their respective natural times. Their year being about one-fourth of a day shorter than the Sirius year, on the fourth anniversary of its adoption, it had retroceded a whole day on the heliacal rising of Sirius; 486 years later, the retrocession was of about 120 days, so that the calendar indicated the opening of the inundation time when in fact the harvest was only beginning; and so on until, after 1461 revolutions of the civil year and 1460 only of Sirius, the first of Thoth fell again on the heliacal rising of that star. This period of 1460 Sirius years (1461 Egyptian years) received later the name Sothic period from Sothis, a Greek form of Sopdet, the Egyptian name of Sirius. Long before the end of the first Sothic period it was found necessary to consider the first of Thoth as a New Year's Day also, the civil New Year's Day. As early as the Fourth Dynasty we find the two Near Year's Days recorded side by side in the tombs.

To the common people who, as usual, were guided by the appearances, the calendar was steady while Sirius and the natural seasons were moving around it. Consequently Sirius's New Year's Day -- which seems to be all they knew or ever cared to know of the Sirius year -- was a movable feats, the date of which was to be announced every year. The fact that they estimated its precession on the calendar at six hours exactly, which was not correct except in 3231 B.C. (see E. Meyer, "Aegyptische Chronologie", p. 14) tends to show that the date was not obtained from astronomical observation, but in a mechanical way on the supposition that every four years it would fall one day later, this rule having been ascertained astronomically once for all, and considered as correct (E. Meyer, op. cit., p. 19).

The cycle of the Sothic periods has been established in different ways by various scholars, with slight variations in the years of beginning of the several periods (see Ginzel, "Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie", 187 sqq.). According to F. Meyer (op. cit., 28), a new period began:--

19 July, A.D. 140-141

19 July, 1321-20 B.C.

19 July, 2781-80 B.C.

19 July, 4241-40 B.C.

These dates have been adopted by Breasted in his chronology (Ancient Records of Egypt, I, sec. 44), which we shall follow in the chronological arrangement of the Egyptian dynasties (see below).

We have no evidence of the Egyptians ever having become aware of the difference between the Sirius year and the solar year, which accounts for the shifting of the summer solstice and, consequently, of the beginning of the inundation from 25 July, in 4236 B.C., to 21 June, in 139 A.D. (see Ginzel, op. cit., 190). This divergence, however, was too slow, and amounted to so little, even in the course of several centuries, that the Egyptian astronomers might well have overlooked, or at least ignored, it with regard to the calendar. It is still more remarkable that, after noting the retrocession of their vague year, they should not have tried to even it up with the Sirius year. But the astronomers were also priests and, as such, custodians of the religious side of the calendar, which in their eyes could not have been less important. The simple insertion of an intercalary day would have been sufficient when two years agreed, but that happened rarely; and the need of a reform was not felt by the contemporary generation. When that need was most acute, as in the middle of a Sothic period, the intercalation was not enough; the reform, to be satisfactory, would have demanded the bringing back of the seasons to their right times (at least in the measure allowed by the shifting of the summer solstice), which could not have been done without passing over several months and days (cf. the Gregorian Reform) and consequently almost as many feasts and popular festivals. Indeed, in Ptolemaic times, when, prompted by pressing politico-religious reasons, the priests finally undertook a reform, they were satisfied with the insertion of a sixth epagomene day every four years. This fixed year, known as the Canopic or Tanitic year, began on 22 October, 238 B.C. (Julian), the first day of Thoth happening then to coincide with that date. It met with but scant favour and was abandoned under Ptolemy IV (Philopator), in honour of whose predecessor, Ptolemy III, the decree had been issued. A second attempt on the same limited scale, and probably in the same spirit of flattery, was made in the early years of August, in connexion with the establishment of the era of Alexandria. The Egyptian years was then brought into harmony with the fixed Julian year, inasmuch as it received every four years an intercalary day. That day was inserted after the fifth epagomene, preceding the Julian intercalary year. The first of Thoth, however, remained where it was when the reform overtook it, viz., on 29 August, except after an intercalary year, when it fell on 30 August. The first year with an intercalary day, it seems, was 23 B.C. (see Ginzel, op. cit., I, 224-228). This fixed year, which is still in use in the Coptic church, was first adopted by the Greek and Roman portions of the population, while the Egyptians proper for several centuries clung still to the old vague year.

As we have seen in the beginning of this section, the whole arrangement of the Egyptian year and its relation to the astronomical and climatic phenomena of chief importance to the ancient Egyptians indicate that it must have been established at a time when one of the heliacal risings of Sirius coincided with the beginning of the inundation, which takes place shortly (according to the Coptic Calendar three days) after the summer solstice. This points clearly to the beginning of the Sothic period the first year of which fell on 19 July, 4241 B.C., when the summer solstice was on 25 July, and the inundation on 28 July. At the beginning of the preceding period, 19 July, 2781 B.C., the summer solstice had already retroceded to 13 July, so that the inundation (16 July) preceded the heliacal rising of Sirius, while at the beginning of the following period, 19 July 5701 B.C., the summer solstice was due only on 6 August, and the inundation on 9 August, or 21 days after the heliacal rising of Sirius (cf. Ginzel, op. cit., 190; E. Meyer, op. cit., 144 sqq.). The date 2781, as a possible date for the inauguration of the Egyptian calendar, is also excluded by the fact that the intercalary days (proving the use of the shifting year of 360 plus 5 days) are mentioned in the so-called Pyramid Texts, which are far older than the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties, although the occur for the first time on the monuments of these dynasties (E. Meyer, op. cit., 40; Breasted, "Ancient Records of Egypt", I, 30). The date of the heliacal rising of Sirius varies according to the latitude from which it is observed. The fact that most of the classical writers and Egyptian documents fix that date at 19 July shows that the Egyptians observed it from the 30th degree of N. latitude, which points to one of the ancient cities of the Southern Delta as the home of the Egyptian year, probably Memphis or Heliopolis (E. Meyer, op. cit., 41; Ginzel, op. cit., I, 186; Breasted, op. cit., I, sec. 45).

The following table exhibits the seasons and the 12 months of the Egyptian year and their Greek names (still in use with slight changes of orthography in the Coptic Calendar) and their respective dates of beginning according to the Julian Calendar, when I Thoth fell on the heliacal rising of Sirius, i.e., at the opening of the Sothic periods:

Inundation I: Thoth . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 July
Inundation II: Phaôphi. . . . . . . . . . 18 August
Inundation III: Athyr. . . . . . . . . . . . 17 September
Inundation IV: Choiac. . . . . . . . . . . . 17 October
Sowing I: Tybi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 November
Sowing II: Mechir. . . . . . . . . . . . 16 December
Sowing III: Phamenoth. . . . . . . . 15 January
Sowing IV: Pharmouthi. . . . . . . . 14 February
Harvest I: Pachon. . . . . . . . . . . . 16 March
Harvest II: Payni. . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 April
Harvest III: Epiphi. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 May
Harvest IV: Mesôri. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 June
The Five Epagomene days: 14 July

The following table shows the correspondence of the present Egyptian (and Coptic) calendar, as reformed under Augustus, with our own calendar, both before and after intercalation:--

Thoth I: 29 Aug. (After Intercalation: 30 Aug.)
Phaôphi: 28 Sept. (After Intercalation: 29 Sept.)
Athyr: 28 Oct. (After Intercalation: 29 Oct.)
Choiac: 27 Nov. (After Intercalation: 28 Nov.)
Tybi: 28 Dec. (After Intercalation: 29 Dec.)
Mechir: 26 Jan. (After Intercalation: 29 Jan.)
Phamenoth: 25 Feb. (After Intercalation: 26 Feb.)
Pharmouthi: 27 Mar. (After Intercalation: 28 Mar.)
Pachon: 26 Apr. (After Intercalation: 27 Apr.)
Payni: 26 May (After Intercalation: 27 May)
Epiphi: 25 June (After Intercalation: 26 June)
Mesôri: 25 July (After Intercalation: 26 July)
Epagomene day: 24 Aug. (After Intercalation: 25 Aug.)

Although the Egyptians kept track of the Sirius year, in so far as its beginning was the official New Year's day, they do not seem to have made use of it for chronological purposes. The same may be said of the other methods of reckoning the year which may have been in use among some classes of the population, as, for instance, the natural year based on the recurrence of the natural seasons. It is not uncommonly taken for granted or advanced that the Egyptian vague year of 365 days was preceded by a round year of 360 days, and that the former was obtained by adding 5 days to the latter. Arguments in favour of that view are few and not convincing. A year of 360 days neither lunar or solar is hardly imaginable (cf. Ginzel, op. cit. 69; E. Meyer op. cit., 10). It is even more likely that, even before the arrangement of 360 plus 5 days, the Egyptian year (originally a lunar year) had become luni-solar, and increased to 365 days, either as a fixed number for every year by intercalary days distributed over the whole year (as in the Julian year), or as an average number in a series of years by a process of embolism (as for instance in the Hebrew year). Finally it was decided to adopt the far simpler and rational arrangement of 12 even months followed by 5 intercalary days; the distribution of the days was changed, not their number. This recast of the calendar found expression at a very early period, if not at the time when it took place, in the following fable by preserved by Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride, xii), but undoubtedly very ancient, as judged from the fact that the divinities mentioned in it belonged to the earliest stages of the Egyptian pantheon. Rhea (Egyptian Nût) having had secret intercourse with Kronos (Geb), Hêlos (Re) cast a spell on her to prevent her from bringing forth during any month of any year. But Hermes (Thoth) who loved her played dice with the Moon and won from her the 73rd part (not 60th as Maspéro, "Histoire ancienne", p. 87; nor 70th as E. Meyer, op. cit., p. 9; nor 72nd, as Ginzel, op. cit. p. 171) of her courses (literally lights, photon), which he added to the (remaining) 360 days. During these five days Nût brought forth her children (Osiris, Horus, Set, Isis, and Nephthys).

The ancient Egyptians never had eras in the usual sense of the word, i.e., epochs from which all successive years are counted regardless of political or other changes in the life of the nation. Instead of eras, in the first five dynasties, they used to name each civil year for some great political or religious event (a usage which had its parallel in Babylonia), as "the Year of the Smiting of the Troglodytes", "the Year of the Conquest of Nubia", "the Year of the defeat of Lower Egypt", "the Year of the Worship of Horus"; or from some fiscal process recurring periodically, as "the Year of [or after] the Second Occurrence of the Census of all Cattle, Gold", etc. which was often abbreviated to "the Year of the Second Occurrence of the Census", or, still more briefly, "the Year of the Second Occurrence". The census having become annual, each year of any given reign came to be identified as the year of the first (or whatever might be the proper ordinal) census of that reign, a new series beginning with each reign. From the Eleventh Dynasty on, the years were always numbered from the first of the current reign, and the second year of the reign was supposed to begin with the first day of Thoth next following the date of the kings' accession, no matter how recent that date might be. The absence of eras in ancient Egypt is all the more remarkable as there were several periods which could easily have been utilized for that purpose, the Sothic period especially. (On other periods -- Phoenix, Apis, etc. -- mentioned by the classical writers but not yet found on Egyptian monuments, as also on the so-called Great and Small years, and the supposed Nubti Era, see Ginzel, op. cit., I, sec. 38 and 45.)

In later times several eras were created or adopted in Egypt, the principal of which was the Era of Alexandria. Its epoch, or starting-point, has conventionally been fixed at 30 (or 31) August of the first year of Augustus (Julian, 30 B.C.), although, as we have seen, it did not acquire its intercalary character until 26, or even 23, B.C., so that its first years were ordinary Egyptian vague years (for further details see Ginzel, op. cit., I, pp. 224-28). The Philippic, or Macedonian Era (more generally known as the Era of Alexander) was introduced into Egypt in the third century B.C., after the death of Alexander the Great (323 B.C.). Up to Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-47 B.C.), Egyptian monuments were dated according to the old Egyptian system, but after that time the Macedonian dates are generally found together with the Egyptian. Macedonian dating was gradually superseded by the use of the fixed eras, yet it is found, sporadically at least, as late as the second century after Christ (Ginzel, op. cit., I, p. 232). The Philippic Era begins on I Thoth, 425 (12 November., 324 B.C., Julian style) of the era of Nabonassar; like the latter it is based on a vague year on the same pattern, months' names included, as the old Egyptian year. The Era of Nabonassar begins as noon, 26 February, 747 B.C. (Julian style). It is the basis of the famous Canon of Ptolemy. It was used in Egypt especially for astronomical purposes, and it met with great favour with chronographers, on account of the certainty of its starting-point and its well-established accuracy. The reduction of Nabonassar's years into the corresponding usual Christian reckoning is rather complicated and requires the use of special tables (see Ginzel, op. cit., I, p. 143 sqq.).

Only a very small portion of the colossal mass of inscriptions, papyri, etc. so far discovered in Egypt has any bearing on, or can be any assistance in, chronological questions. The astronomical knowledge of the ancient Egyptians does not seem to have gone very far, and, as everyone knows, accurate astronomical observations rightly recorded in connexion with historical events are the basis of any true chronology of ancient times. It is remarkable that the Egyptian Claudius Ptolemy (second century after Christ) took from the Babylonians and the Greeks all the observations of eclipses he ever used and started his canon (see above) with Babylonian, not with Egyptian kings. Evidently he held no records of sun observations made in Egypt. Yet, for religious reasons, the Egyptians noted the Heliacal risings of Sirius on the various dates of their movable calendar. A few have reached us, and have been of no small assistance in astronomically determining, within four years at least, some of the most important epochs of Egyptian history. The Egyptians also recorded the coincidence of new moons with the days of their calendar. Such data in themselves have no chronological value, as the phases of the moon return to the same positions on the calendar every nineteen years; taken, however, in conjunction with other data, they can help us to determine more precisely the chronology of some events (Breasted, op. cit., I, sec. 46). Moreover, ancient Egypt has bequeathed to us a number of monuments of a more or less chronological character: (1) The calendars of religious feasts [Calendars of Dendera (Tentyris), Edfu, Esneh, all three of which belong to the late period, Calendar of Papyrus Sallier IV] are especially interesting because they illustrate the nature of the Egyptian year (see Ginzel, op. cit., p. 200 sqq). (2) The lists of selected royal names comprise: the so-called Tablets of Sakkâra, Nineteenth Dynasty, forty-seven names beginning with the sixth of the First Dynasty; Karnak (part of Thebæ), Eighteenth Dynasty, sixty-one names, unfortunately not chronologically arranged; Abados, Nineteenth Dynasty, seventy-six names beginning with Menes. (3) Two chronological compilations known as the Turin Papyrus, Nineteenth Dynasty, and the Palermo Stone, Fifth Dynasty, from the places where they are now preserved. Unfortunately, the first of these last two monuments is broken into many fragments and otherwise mutilated, while the second is but a fragment of a much larger stone. These two documents (cf. E. Meyer, op. cit., pp. 105-205, and Breasted, op. cit., I., pp. 51 sqq.) are, though fragmentary, of the greatest importance, in particular for the early dynasties and the predynastic times. The Turin papyrus contains, besides the name of the kings chronologically arranged in groups or dynasties, the durations both of the individual reigns and of the various dynasties or groups of dynasties, in years, months, and days. On the Palermo Stone each year of a reign is entered separately and is often accompanied with short historical notices. -- All these documents combined furnish the chronological frame for the vast amount of historical matter contained in thousands of mural inscriptions and stelæ collected and worked out with almost incredible patience by several generations of Egyptologists during the last hundred years.

Of secondary importance are the data furnished by the Greek and Latin writers. Still we must mention here the Aigyptiaka Hypomnemata of the Egyptian priest Manetho of Sebennytus, third century B.C. Of this work we have: (a) Some fragments which, preserved by Josephus (Contra Apion, I, xiv, xv, xx), were used by Eusebius in his "Præparatio Evangelica" and the first book of his "Chronicon"; (b) by an epitome which has reached us in two recensions; one of these recensions (the better of the two) was used by Julius Africanus, and the other by Eusebius in their respective chronicles; both have been preserved by Georgius Syncellus (eighth-ninth century) in his Egloge Chronographias. We also have a Latin translation by St. Jerome and an Armenian version of the Eusebian recension, while fragments of the recension of Julius Africanus are to be found in the so-called "Excerpta Barbara". Judging from that epitome, the work of Manetho was divided into three parts, the first of which contained the reigns of the gods and demi-gods (omitted in the African recension) and eleven dynasties of human kings; the second, eight dynasties of such kings; the third, twelve (the last one added after Manetho's death). Besides a few short notices, the epitome contains nothing but names and figures showing the duration of each reign and dynasty. Those figures are summed up at the end of each book. In the shape it has reached us Manetho's work is of comparatively little assistance, on account of its chronology, which seems to be hopelessly mixed up, besides being grossly exaggerated; and it must be used with the greatest caution. (For further details on Manetho and his work see the preface of C. Müller in the Didot edition of the second volume of "Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum", and E. Meyer, op. cit., pp. 69-99.) In the next place should be mentioned a list of so-called Theban kings handed down by Erotosthenes of Cyrene (third century B.C.) and preserved by Syncellus. It seems to be a translation of some Egyptian royal list similar to the Table of Karnak [see C. Müller in the Didot edition of Heroditus (Fragmenta chronographica, p. 182) and E. Meyer, op. cit., pp. 99-103]. Lastly, Heroditus's Historiai (fifth century B.C.) and Diodorus Siculus's Bibliotheke (first century B.C.) deserve at least a passing mention. Although their interest lies chiefly in another direction, yet we may glean from them occasional chronological data for the times during which these two writers lived.

We cannot enter here upon even a cursory analysis, much less a discussion, of the various systems of Egyptian chronology. The older systems of Champollion, Lepsius, Lesueur, Brugsch, Mariette were, to a considerable extent, based on theories which have since been proved false, or on an imperfect study and an erroneous interpretation of the chronological material. These scholars, however, paved the way for the present generation of Egyptologists, of the German school especially, who have at last succeeded in placing the chronology of ancient Egypt on a firm basis. The following chronological table up to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty is condensed from the excellent work of Professor J. H. Breasted, "Ancient Records of Egypt", I, pp. 40-47. The other dynasties up to the Thirtieth are taken from Professor G. Steindorff's "Outline of the History of Egypt" in Baedeker's "Egypt" (6th ed., 1908), with the exception of the year 408, the last of the Twenty-seventh Dynasty and first of the Twenty-eighth, which we copy from Maspéro, "Guide to the Cairo Museum" (Cairo, 1903, p. 3:--

4241* B.C. -- Introduction of the Calendar
3400 B.C. -- Accession of Menes and beginning of the dynasties
3400-2980 B.C. -- First and Second Dynasties
2980-2900 B.C. -- Third Dynasty
2900-2750 B. C. -- Fourth Dynasty
¹2750-2625 B.C. -- Fifth Dynasty
¹2625-2475 B.C. -- Sixth Dynasty
2475-2445 B.C. -- Seventh and Eighth Dynasties
2445-2160 B.C. -- Ninth and Tenth Dynasty
2160-2000 B.C. -- Eleventh Dynasty
2000*-1788* B.C. -- Twelfth Dynasty
²1788*-1580 B.C. -- Thirteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties (including Hyksos times)
¹1580-1350 B.C. -- Eighteenth Dynasty
¹1350-1205 B.C. -- Nineteenth Dynasty
¹1205-1200 B. C. -- Interim
¹1200-1090 B.C. -- Twentieth Dynasty
¹1090-945 B.C. -- Twenty-first Dynasty
¹945-745 B.C. -- Twenty-second Dynasty
¹745-718 B.C. -- Twenty-third Dynasty
¹718-712 B.C. -- Twenty-fourth Dynasty
¹712-663 B.C. -- Twenty-fifth Dynasty
663-525 B.C. -- Twenty-sixth Dynasty
525-408 B.C. -- Twenty-seventh Dynasty
408-398 B.C. -- Twenty-eighth Dynasty
398-378 B.C. -- Twenty-ninth Dynasty
378-341 B.C. -- Thirtieth Dynasty

Dates marked with an asterisk in the above table are astronomically computed and correct within three years, while the date 525 is attested by the Canon of Ptolemy. Several dates besides, within the period of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the initial date of Shebataka, second king of the twenty-fifth Dynasty, are also astronomically determined. The superscript "1" (¹) indicates that the numerical difference between the two following dates is the minimum duration allowed by the monuments for the corresponding dynasties. The superscript "2" (²) on the contrary, indicates the maximum of duration. this is the case only for the period from the Thirteenth to the Seventeenth dynasties. What this period may loose some day will be the gain of the nine following dynasties, but the extreme dates, 1788 and 662, will not be affected. The duration of 285 years for the Ninth and Tenth Dynasties, indicated by the two extreme dates 2445-2160, is an estimate, in round numbers, based on an average of 16 years for each of their 18 kings. The uncertainty which attaches to that period affects the dates of all the preceding dynasties, which, consequently, may some day have to be shifted as much as a century either way.

Ethnology. Scholars are at variance as to the origin of the Egyptians. Some, chiefly philologists, suppose that the Egyptians of historical times had come from Western Asia either directly, through the Isthmus of Suez, or, as most will have it, through the straits of Bab-el-Mandeb and Ethiopia. Others, principally naturalists, think they came from, or at least through, Libya, while others still place the original home of the Egyptians in Central Africa. The first hypothesis is now the most commonly received. Several considerations tend to make it plausible: the fact, for instance, that wheat and barely, which have been found in the most ancient tombs dating from before the first dynasty, are originally indigenous to Asia, as well as linen, wine, and the produce of other cultivated plants which are represented among the funeral offerings in the tombs of the earliest dynasties. And the same can be said of the two sacred trees of the Egyptian pantheon, the sycamore and the persea. Finally, the fact that the ancestor of the domesticated Egyptian ass had its home in the wilderness in the south of Egypt would show that the Asiatic invaders or settlers came through Ethiopia. This theory tallies with the Biblical narrative, Gen., x, 6, which makes the ancestor of the Egyptians, under the ethnic name of Misraim, the brother of Cûsh the Ethiopian, of Phût (e.g. Puanit, the Poeni of the Latins), and Canaan, all three of whom certainly had their original homes in Asia. What seems more certain is that the Egyptians of historical times belong to the same stock as the Libyans and other races, some of which were absorbed, while other were totally or partly driven away by them. Five at least of these are given in the Bible (Gen., x, 13, 14) under ethnic names as sons of Misraim, i.e. Ludim (according to Maspéro, "Histoire Ancienne des peuples de l'Orient", Paris, 1908, p. 16, the Rotu or Romitu of the hieroglyphics, i.e. the Egyptians proper), Laabim (the Libyans), Naphtûchim (the inhabitants of No-Phtah, or Memphis), Patrûsim (the inhabitants of the To-rêsi, i.e. Upper Egypt), Anamim (the Anûs, who, in prehistoric times founded On of the North, or Heliopolis, and On of the South, or Hermonthis).

Predynastic History. At all events, in the predynastic times, when the light of history begins to dawn on Egypt, various races which at different periods had settled in Egypt, had been blended under the molding influence of the climate of their new home, and turned into a new race, well-characterized and easily distinguished from any other race, Asiatic, European, or African -- the Egyptian race. Naturally, a difference of occupation created a certain variety of types within that race. While the tiller of the soil was short and thick-set, the men of the higher classes and the women generally were rather tall and slender, but all were broad-shouldered, erect, spare, flat-footed. The head is rather large, the forehead square and rather low, the nose fleshy, the lips thick but not turned up, the mouth rather large with an undefinable expression of instinctive sadness. The type perpetuated itself through thirty or forty centuries of revolutions, invasions, or pacific immigrations and survives to this day in the peasant class, the fellaheen, who form the bulk of the population and the sinews of the national strength. All agree that, even before the Egyptian race had attained that remarkable degree of ethnological permanence, Egypt, from a merely pastoral region, had become an agricultural country, as a result of the immigration (or invasion) of Asiatic tribes, for, before the dawn of historical times, they had learned to grow wheat and barley, using the plow in their cultivation. Next came the political organization of the country. It was subdivided into a number of small independent States, which became the nomes of pharaonic times, each with its own laws and religion. In the course of time some of these States were merged into one another, until they formed two large principalities, the Northern Kingdom (To-Mehi) and the Southern Kingdom (To-Rêsi), an arrangement which must have lasted some time, for when the final degree of centralization was reached, and the two countries united under one rule, the king took the title of "Lord of Both Lands", or "King of Upper and Lower Egypt" (never "King of Kimit", i.e. of Egypt) and often wore a double crown consisting of the white crown of the South and the red crown of the North; the arms of the United Kingdom were formed by a union of the lotus and the papyrus, the emblems of the two countries.

The capital of the Northern Kingdom was Bûto, under the protection of the serpent goddess of the same name (now Tell-el-Ferâ'in, 20 miles south-west from Rosetta). Nekheb (the modern el-Kâb, a few miles north of Edfu) was the capital of the Southern Kingdom; the vulture-goddess, Nekhabet, was its protecting deity. But at both capitals the hawk-god, Horus, was worshipped as the distinctive patron-deity of both kings. That ancient population of Egypt, referred to in later texts as the "Horus-worshippers", have recently emerged from the mythical obscurity to which their kings have been relegated before the days of Manetho, who knows them as the xxx, "the shades", i.e. the deified ancestors. The Palermo Stone has revealed to us the names of six or seven rulers of the Northern Kingdom; and in Upper Egypt, thousands of sepulchres (none of the kings, unfortunately) have recently been excavated. The bodies, unembalmed, lie sideways, in what is called the "embryonic" posture, surrounded by pottery or stone jars, where remains of food, drink, and ointment can still be discerned, with toilet utensils, flint weapons, and clay models of various objects which the deceased might need in the life hereafter -- boats especially, to cross the waters to the Elysian Fields. From those early times date, as to the essentials of concept and expression, the Pyramid Text alluded to in a former section of this article. We have seen, under Chronology, that the institution of the calendar dates from predynastic times (4241 B.C.), and that its original home was in the Northern Kingdom, probably at Memphis or at On (Heliopolis). The computations necessary for that calendar show clearly that we must trace to predynastic times the hieroglyphic system of writing which we find fully developed in the royal tombs of the first two dynasties (Breasted, "Ancient History of the Egyptians", pp. 35-39).

Dynastic History. Since Manetho of Sebennytus (see above) it has been customary to arrange the long series of kings who ruled over ancient Egypt, from the beginning of history until the conquest of Alexander the Great, in thirty dynasties, each of which corresponds, or as a rule, seems to correspond, to a break in the succession of legitimate rulers, resulting from internal dissensions or military reverses, the latter almost invariably leading to an invasion and, eventually, the establishment of a foreign dynasty. Manetho's claim, that his history was compiled from lists of royal ancestry, is fairly borne out by the monuments -- the so-called Tablets (royal lists) of Sakkarah, Abydos, Karnak, and especially the Palermo Stone, as well as annals of individual kings recorded on the walls of temples, tombs, etc.

These thirty dynasties are very unevenly known to us; of a good many we know next to nothing. This is in particular the case for the Seventh and Eighth dynasties (Memphites), the Ninth and Tenth (Heracleopolites), the Eleventh (Theban -- contemporary with the Tenth), the Thirteenth (Theban) and the Fourteenth (Xoite -- in part simultaneous), the Fifteenth, and the Sixteenth (Hyksos), and the Seventeenth Dynasty (Theban -- partly contemporary with the Sixteenth. Other dynasties are known to us by their monuments, especially their tombs, which are often extremely rich in information as to the institutions, arts, manners, and customs of Egypt during the lifetime of their occupants, but almost totally devoid of historical evidence proper. Such is the case, for instance, for the first five dynasties, of which all we can say is that they must have ruled successively over the whole land of Egypt and that their kings must have been conquerors as well as builders. We know little or nothing of the peoples they battled with, nor can we detect the political reasons which brought about the rise and fall of the several dynasties. Evidently, in some cases the lack of information on some periods, which must have been very momentous ones in the political life of Egypt, should be attributed to the disappearance of monuments of an historical character, or to the fact that such monuments have not yet been discovered; it is very likely, however, that in many cases no historical evidence was ever handed down to posterity. In Egypt, as in Assyria and Babylonia, it was not customary for kings to place their defeats on record, nor did the chieftain or the soldier or fortune who after a period of internal dissensions succeeded in establishing himself as the founder of a new dynasty, care to take posterity into his confidence as to his origin and previous political career. Manetho, who, as a rule, does not seem to have been much better informed than we are, resorts in such cases to traditions, strongly tinged with legend, which were in the keeping of the priests and belonged, very likely, to the same stock as most of those related by Heroditus on matters that could not fall under his personal observation. Such traditions, until confirmed by the monuments, or at any rate purified of their legendary elements by comparison with them, must of course be kept in abeyance. For the present the royal names are almost all that we can regard as certain for several of the dynasties. Such is the case for the first two dynasties, which until about 1888 A.D. were considered by most scholars as entirely mythical. Their tombs, however, have since been discovered at Ûmm-el-Ga'âb, near Abydos, in the territory of the ancient This (Thinis), and the names of Menes, Zer, Usaphais, and Miebis have already been found. A good many other kings of Manetho's list cannot be identified with the owners of the tombs discovered, owing to the fact that, while Manetho gives only the proper names of the kings, the monuments contained, as a rule, nothing but their Horus names (Maspéro, "Histoire Ancienne", 56 sq.). Monuments of these kings have been discovered in Upper Egypt and at Sakkarah, which shows that they must have ruled over the whole land of Egypt. The various articles found in these royal tombs point to a high degree of civilization by no means inferior to that of the immediately following dynasties. Religion in general, and the funerary rites in particular, were already fixed, and the hieroglyphic system of writing had reached its last stage of alphabetic development (Maspéro, loc. cit.; Breasted, "History of Ancient Egyptians", 40 sqq.).

The history of Egypt can be divided into two large periods, the first of which comprises the first seventeen and the second the other thirteen dynasties. In current literature Dynasties Three to Eleven are often variously referred to as the Old Kingdom (ancien empire), Dynasties Twelve to Seventeen as the Middle Kingdom (moyen empire), Dynasties Eighteen to Twenty as the Empire (nouvel empire). The simpler division which we propose here seems to us more rational.

First Period: First to Seventeenth Dynasty. -- During this period Egypt and the Asiatic empires never, so far as we know, came into contact, except possibly in a pacific and commercial way; their armies never met in battle. Some of the ancient Babylonian and Chaldean kings, like Sargon I (third millennium B.C.), may have occasionally extended their raids as far as the Mediterranean Sea, but it does not seem that they ever established their rule in a permanent way. They were fully occupied with the war waged among themselves, or with the Elamites who for centuries contended with Babylonia and Chaldea for supremacy in Western Asia. On their side the kings of Egypt had to secure their own borders (principally the southern) against the neighbouring tribes, a necessity which led them, after many centuries of warfare, to the conquest of Nubia. As early as the reign of Pepi (Sixth Dynasty) Nubia had been brought under control so far as to receive Egyptian colonies. Under the kings of the Twelfth Dynasty, chiefly under Usertasen III (the Sesostris of the Greeks), the conquest was achieved, and the valley of the Upper Nile as far as the Second Cataract was organized into an Egyptian province. The Libyans, also, and the tribes settled between the Nile and the Red Sea had to be repeatedly repelled or conquered. The brief records of such punitive expeditions, which appear on the Palermo Stone, attribute them to dates as early as the first two dynasties. Extensive commercial relations were maintained with the Syrian coast (whither King Snefrû, of the third dynasty, sent a fleet to procure cedar logs from Mount Lebanon), with the Upper Nile districts, with Arabia to the south, and with the Somali coast (Punt, Pûanit) to the east. Roads were built for this commerce between Coptos and the different points of the Red Sea. The chief of these roads led through Wâdi Hammamat (Rohanû or Rehenu Valley), the rich quarries of which were operated by the Egyptians from the time of the Fifth Dynasty; it furnished the niger, or Thebaicus, lapis, a hard dark stone which was used for statues and coffins. In Asia proper the pharaohs of that time sought no extension of territory, with the exception of a few points in the Peninsula of Sinai, where, as early as the First Dynasty, but especially since the time of Snefrû, they operated mines of copper and turquoise. As a rule on the north-west border they kept on the defensive against the raids of the nomadic tribes established on the Syrian desert and, like the modern Bedouins, always ready for plunder. On that side the frontier was protected by a wall across the Wadi Tumilat and a line of forts extending from the Nile to the Red Sea. Occasionally the Egyptians resorted to counter-raids on the Syrian territory, as in the case of the Amus and Hirûshaitus under Pepi I, but, the punishment inflicted, they invariably returned to their line of defense.

The seat of government during the first period was several times shifted from one city to another. Menes, before the union of the two kingdoms, very likely resided at This, in his native nome of Abydos, in Upper Egypt. Having succeeded in bringing Lower Egypt under his rule, he appropriately selected Memphis for the capital of the new kingdom, as being more central. During the Ninth and Tenth Dynasties, Heracleopolis, only a short distance south of Memphis, became the official seat of government, for no special known reason -- perhaps simply because the pharaohs of the reigning dynasties had originally been natives and princes of these nomes. They were opposed by the princes of Thebes (Eleventh Dynasty) who finally (Twelfth Dynasty) succeeded in overthrowing them and selected their own city as capital. This radical change had the advantage of brining Nubia within closer range, and it may have contributed substantially to the conquest of that province; but it weakened the northern border, which was now too far from the center of political life.

The pharaohs of the Thirteenth Dynasty (most of whom were called Sebek-hotep or Nofir-hotep), without abandoning Thebes, seemed to have paid more attention than their predecessors to the cities of the Delta, where -- at Tanis in particular -- they occasionally resided, and it was from Xois (Sakha), a city of Lower Egypt that the next following (Fourteenth) dynasty arose. It seems that the kings of that dynasty never succeeded in establishing a firm and lasting government. Their rapid succession on the throne and the famous invasion of the Hyksos which Manetho registers at that time, point to internal dissensions and a condition of affairs verging on anarchy. "At this time there came to us king Timæos by name. Under this king, God, why I do not know, sent an adverse wind to us, and against all likelihood from parts of the East of ignoble race, coming unexpectedly, invaded the country and conquered it easily and without battle." This testimony contains contradictory elements. It is difficult to imagine how an invasion could result in a conquest unless it took place gradually and consequently not "unexpectedly". The most probable interpretation of Manetho's words seems to be: that the invaders came in a peaceful quest for new homes, and not all in one body, though in comparatively large numbers at one time; that they first settled, with their flocks, in the rich pasture lands of the Delta, then, little by little, adapted themselves to the political life of the country, some succeeding in occupying important situations in the army or in the administration; that finally one of them, favoured by the rivalry of competitors for the vacant throne, seized the reigns of government and was recognized as king not only by the men of his own race, but also by quite a considerable party of the natives.

The identity of the Hyksos has been the subject of long discussions. Some, with De Cara, think they were the same as the Hittites, others (Baedeker, "Egypt", p. lxxix) see in them simple Syrian bedouins. The opinion which seems most probably and best agrees with the tradition preserved by Manetho, identifies them with the large Canaanitic family once settled in Lower Chaldea, along the Persian Gulf and the Arabian coast. According to Professor Maspéro (op. cit., 194 sqq.), it was the invasion of the lower Euphrates by the Elamites under Kudurnakhunte (2285 B.C.) that forced his family to migrate to the west in search of a new home. The seafaring tribes settled along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea to which they gave their name (Phoenicians, Phoinikes, Poeni; Egyptian Puanit, Punt; Bible, Phut). Others settled in the mountainous district of Palestine (Canaan proper), where they resumed their nomadic life, and gradually developed into an agricultural race. Others, finally, shepherds also, probably prevented from taking the northern direction by the powerful and well-organized nation of the Hittites, turned to Egypt, where they settled as explained above. Manetho assigns them to three dynasties, the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth, of which only the Sixteenth held sway overall Egypt. During the Fifteenth Dynasty, the princes of the southern nomes, for a least a time, managed to retain a certain independence. They regained it under the Third Hyksos Dynasty, with which they share the honour of being recognized as the Seventeenth Dynasty. The last of them, Amosis, after a war of six years, finally succeeded in driving the intruders out of Egypt, pursuing the remnant of their army as far as Sharhuna (perhaps Sharukhen, Jos., xix, 6) in Southern Syria, where the last battle was fought and won by the Egyptians. From the monuments we know the names of at least four of the Hyksos kings, three of the name of Apophi and one Khian. An alabaster vase bearing the names of the last has been found under a wall of the palace of Cnossis in Crete, and a lion in Bagdad Their capital seems to have been Avaris on the north-eastern border of the Delta. Some think that their rule extended over Palestine and Southern Syria, which would explain the location of their capital. The usage of carrying on official correspondence with the local princes of Syria and Palestine in the Babylonian language and script probably dates from the period of the Hyksos. Few of the monuments of the Hyksos have been preserved, enough of them, however, to show us that as a rule the Shepherd kings conformed to the ancient culture of Egypt, adopting its language, art, religion (cf. however, Maspéro, op. cit., 203) and political institutions. But they oppressed their Egyptians subjects, and posterity held their memory in abomination.

It is in the Hyksos period that we must place the arrival of the Israelites in Egypt. The migration of the Terachites from Ur in Chaldea may have coincided with, or at all events was posterior to, that of the great Canaanitic family. Although of different stock, the two families had long been thrown together in their former common home and spoke the same language; and this may partly explain the favour which the children of Israel found at the hands of an Egyptian ruler, himself of Canaanitic, or possibly of Semitic, origin. "The scarabs of a Pharaoh who evidently belonged to the Hyksos time give his name as Jacob-her or possibly Jacob-El, and its is not impossible," remarks Professor Breasted, "that some chief of the Jacob-tribes of Israel for a time gained the leadership in this obscure age" (Hist. of Anc. Egypt, 181).

Second Period: Eighteenth to Thirtieth Dynasty. -- The second period is chiefly characterized by the Asiatic victories of the pharaohs when it opens, and by the repeated invasions of Egyptian territory by Asiatic powers, which was the reaction of those victories. During the first period Egypt could be great at home, within her natural borders along the Nile valley Every page of her history is her own. During the second period her greatness is in proportion to her conquests abroad on another continent; almost every page of her history belongs to the history of the world.

The first ambition of the kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty, inaugurated by Ahmosis (1580-1557 B.C.), was to secure their own borders against the Libyans, who had encroached upon the Delta during the period of confusion preceding the expulsion of the Hyksos, and, against the Nubians, who had availed themselves of the same opportunity to shake off the yoke of Egyptian domination. The first point was achieved by Amenhotep I, the second by Thotmes I, whose two successive reigns lasted from 1557 to 1501 B.C. Not satisfied with recovering and reorganizing the ancient province of Nubia, Thotmes I pushed more than 400 miles further south to Napata, below the Fourth Cataract, where the southern border of Egypt remained fixed for the next eight hundred years or so. Both Amenhotep I and Thotmes I, and perhaps Ahmosis, too, had already undertaken the conquest of Syria. But it was reserved for Thotmes III (1501-1447 B.C.) to complete it and organize the conquered territory as a permanent dependency of Egypt. Circumstances were favourable. Both Assyria and Babylonia were in decline, and the powerful Hittites were restricted within their own borders beyond the Cilician Gates in Asia Minor. Nevertheless the great confederation of the Canaanitic cities (perhaps to be identified with the Hyksos), backed the Phoenician cities, the States, or State, of Naharin (from the Mediterranean to the bend of the Euphrates), and the Aryan kingdom of Mitanni (between the Euphrates and the Belik), was not an enemy to be despised, and it cost the army and fleet of the pharaoh no less than seventeen campaigns to achieve a permanent victory. The Kings of Assyria and Babylonia, and even the Hittites, sent presents which Thotmes took for tribute; but he does not seem to have invaded their territories; he probably never crossed the Belik or the Cilician Gates, which mark the limits of the greatest extension of Egyptian control in Asia. The whole region conquered was organized as a simple tributary territory under the supervision of a governor general backed by Egyptian garrisons in the chief cities. The local rulers were otherwise left unmolested except in the case of rebellion, when the punishment was prompt and severe in the extreme. Their sons were educated in Egypt, and were generally appointed to succeed them at their death. The administration of this territory, which included also the island of Cyprus, and was, like Nubia, the source of immense wealth to Egypt, gave rise to considerable correspondence between suzerain and vassals. On the part of the latter it was written on clay tablets in the Babylonian language and characters -- at that time the official language and characters of Western Asia. From that correspondence (so-called Tell-Amarna tablets) we learn that under Amenhotep IV (1375-1358 B.C.) the vigilance of the Egyptian court had considerably relaxed; the local dynasties were constantly and vainly asking for Egyptian troops against the encroachments of the Hittites and the Khabiri. This led, toward the end of the dynasty, to a complete loss of the Asiatic territory conquered by Thotmes III.

The Eighteenth Dynasty was an era of great international prosperity. With the single exception of Amenhotep IV, who allowed himself to be drawn into a scheme to reform the Egyptian religion, all its kings were wise and just rulers. They were also great builders and devoted their vast resources in men -- chiefly captives taken in war -- in gold, and silver, derived from tribute, to the erection of magnificent temples and temple-like mortuary chapels, all of which they richly endowed. The reform attempted by Amenhotep IV consisted in proclaiming Aton (an old form of Re, or Ra, the sun-god of Heliopolis) the sole god, and in enforcing his worship at the expense of others, particularly Amon for whom the priesthood of Thebes claimed precedence over the others. He ordered the word god, as applied to the other deities, to be chiselled out wherever it could be found on the temples and other monuments. He changed his own name to Ikhnaton, "Spirit of Aton", in honour of the new god, to whom he erected a temple at Thebes called Gem-Aton. Lastly, he changed his residence from Thebes to Akhetaton, "Horizon of Aton" (now El 'Amarna), a city which he founded in a like spirit, and he also founded two other cities of the same name, each with a Gem-Aton temple, one in Nubia, at the foot of the Third Cataract (where it was discovered in 1907 by Professor Breasted), and the other in Syria, the site of which is still unknown. This reform was violently opposed by the established priesthood, and the land was soon thrown into a state of general confusion verging on anarchy. The temples and cities dedicated to Aton were destroyed and abandoned soon after the royal reformer's death.

Harmhab (1350-1315 B.C.), the founder of the Nineteenth Dynasty, was principally engaged in bringing the land out of the confusion into which it had fallen during the last years of the preceding dynasty, and restoring the temples of the ancient gods to their former splendor. Seti I (1313-12î) attempted to recover the Asiatic provinces lost by Amenhotep IV, but he does not seem to have pushed his advance farther than Hauran and the southern slopes of Mount Lebanon. He probably did no more than skirmish with the Hittites, who were now in possession of the valley of the Orantes, and had occupied the strong post of Kadesh on that river; even his conquest of Palestine does not appear to have been permanent. At all events Seti's son, Ramses II (12î-1225), had to begin all over again. After three years spent in recovering Palestine, Ramses finally succeeded in dislodging the Hittites from the valley of the Orantes. The war nevertheless continued some ten or eleven years longer without great results, the Hittities returning to their former positions as soon as Ramses had retired to Egypt for the winter season; when the Hittites proposed to him a treaty of permanent peace and alliance he gladly accepted it (1272 B.C.). This treaty, of which we have two Egyptian transcripts and a Hittite copy in the Babylonian language and character, does not stipulate anything with regard to the boundary between the two countries, which was, very likely, about the same as under Seti, save possibly on the coast, where it may have been extended to the Nahr-el-Kelb as suggested by the presence of three stelæ carved there on the rocks by Ramses. Thirteen years later the Hittite king visited Egypt on the occasion of the marriage of his eldest daughter with the pharaoh. Diplomatic unions of that kind had already taken place during the preceding dynasty. The treaty was faithfully observed by both parties, at least until the second year of Merneptah (1225-1215), the son and successor of Ramses II, when the Hittites seem to have taken part in an invasion of the Delta by the Libyans and various peoples of the northern Mediterranean, their allies.

Neither this, however, nor the disaffection which at the same time was rampant among his Asiatic vassals spurred Merneptah to new conquests. The Hittite war of Ramses II, it seems, had completely exhausted the military enterprise of Egypt. Her armies from that time kept to the defensive. Merneptah was satisfied to bring back Palestine to submission and defeat and drive out the Libyans -- among whom the Tehenu tribe was prominent apparently because they were settled on the Egyptian border -- and their allies, the Sherden (Sardinians), the Shekelesh (Sicilians?), the Ekwesh (Achæans?), and the Lycians. But even these were considered great achievements, and the people sang:--

(Breasted, op. cit., 330; "Ancient Records of Egypt", III, 603 sqq.) The situation at home was no brighter, and it became worse under Merneptah's successors, Amenmeses, Memeptah-Siptah, and Seti II, until complete anarchy prevailed. Thrusting aside a host of less daring pretenders, a Syrian named Irisu (or Yerseu), who held an important position as head of one of the nomes, seized the power and for five years ruled the land in tyranny and violence. (Breasted, "Ancient Records of Egypt", IV, §. 398.) Thus ended the Nineteenth Dynasty.

Of Setnakht (1200-1198 B.C.), the founder of the following dynasty, we know little except that he was a strong man who succeeded in restoring order. His son, Ramses III (1198-1167) was confronted by very much the same situation as Merneptah some twenty-five years before, only a great deal more serious. The allies of the Libyans defeated by Merneptah were only the vanguard of a far more dreadful army of invasion. This was now approaching. It was followed at close range by motley hordes of immigrants from the islands and the northern shores of the Mediterranean, "peoples of the sea", as the Egyptians called them. Besides those already mentioned we find now the Peleset (Philistines) and the Denyen (Danaoio). Some of the invaders were coming by sea, along the coast, others by land. Ramses III showed himself equal to the occasion. Having defeated a first contingent who had already landed in the Delta and joined the Libyans, he sent a strong fleet to check the advance of the main body of the invaders' ships and hastened by land, with his army, to Syria, where he expected to find the enemy. Both the land and the naval battles were fought in about the same region, for Ramses, having routed the land forces of the enemy, was in time to co-operate with the Egyptian fleet in defeating that of the invaders. This brilliant campaign stayed the advance of the immigrants who now came straggling along, settling here and there as vassals of Egypt, in Syria and in Palestine, where, later, one of their tribes, the Peleset, or Philistines, offered a stubborn resistance to the invasion of the Hebrews. On the other hand the great Hittite confederation had been very much weakened, if not entirely disintegrated, as a result of the invasion. Ramses III had to repel another invasion of the Libyans, impelled this time by Meshwesh (the Maxyes of Heroditus), and shortly after he found it necessary to appear again with his army in Northern Palestine, where rebellion ha broken out against some of his vassals. The boundary remained, probably, where it was under the Nineteenth Dynasty, including the whole course of the River Leontes (or Litany) and possibly a small portion of the upper Orantes, excluding Kadesh. Ramses III had not further trouble with his Asiatic vassals.

With the successors of Ramses III, nine weak pharaohs of the same name (Ramses IV-XII), national decay sets in. Egypt entirely loses her prestige abroad, particularly in Asia, where Syria is expanding under Tiglath-Pileser I; at home everything is confusion. Priests, officials, and mercenaries whose wealth and prerogatives have been steadily growing at the expense of both pharaoh and his people, now fight among themselves for the controlling political influence, the pharaoh being reduced to a mere puppet. Such a state of disorganization prevails everywhere that, in the necropolis of Thebes, in sight of the temple of Amon, where the high-priest is so powerful, the tombs of the pharaohs are desecrated and plundered by a band of robbers, and the royal mummies despoiled of all their most costly ornaments.

At some period during the Nineteenth Dynasty the pharaohs had their capital at Tanis (Sân-el-Hagar) in the Delta, Thebes remaining the religious capital of the empire. There Ramses XII resided when a local noble, Nesubenebded, seized the power (1113 B.C.) and established himself as king over the Delta. The weak pharaoh retired to Thebes, where he was soon overshadowed by Hrihor, the high-priest of Amon, who, when Ramses XII died as ingloriously as he had lived, was finally proclaimed supreme ruler of Egypt by an oracle of Khonsu followed by the approval of Amon (1090). Hrihor's rule, in fact, never extended over Lower Egypt, and his independence was not even suspected by Manetho who, after Ramses XII, introduces the Twenty-first Dynasty with Nesubenebded as its founder. The division between the two countries was to continue, save for short intervals, for about four hundred and fifty years. Thebes, however, rarely during that time enjoyed complete independence, and still more rarely ruled over the whole country. Her relations to the Delta were usually those of a vassal to a suzerain. Her influence was particularly felt in Nubia, whither descendants of Hrihor seem to have retired at an early period, eventually founding an independent nation at Napata. Confusion and disorder still prevailed all over the land. To save them from desecration, the royal mummies had to be concealed in an old, and probably unused, tomb of Amenhotep I, near the temple of Deir el-Bahri, where they remained hidden until they were rifled some thirty-five years ago by the Arabs. Most of them are now at the Museum of Cairo. The capital of this dynasty was at Tanis. Its last king, Psibkhenno II, may be the pharaoh mentioned in III Kings, xi, 18; iii, 1; ix, 16 (see below). Assyria was then on the decline and we can best represent to ourselves David and Solomon as at least nominal vassals of Egypt.

Sheshonk (945-î4), founder of the Twenty-second Dynasty, was a powerful mercenary prince, or chief of hired troops, of Heracleopolis, where his ancestors, of Libyan origin, had settled early in the Twenty-first dynasty. In 945 B.C. he proclaimed himself king, establishing his residence at Bubastis, in the Delta. Sheshonk seems to have been an ambitious and energetic ruler. He certainly led a successful campaign in Palestine, perhaps the same mentioned in III Kings, xiv, 25 (cf. II Paralip., xii, 2 sqq.), where it is said that he came to Jerusalem in the fifth year of Roboam, and took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, although Jerusalem is not among the one hundred and fifty-six Palestinian cities recorded in his inscription. In Solomon's time, Sheshonk had given hospitality to Jeroboam (III Kings, xi, 40). According to Professor Breasted (Ancient Egyptians, 362), Sheshonk is also to be identified with the pharaoh who gave his daughter as a wife to Solomon (III Kings, 3, iii, 1) and later on conquered Gezer and turned it over to his daughter, Solomon's wife, as a dowry (III Kings, ix, 16) while Professor Maspéro (Hist. Anc., 416) refers to these episodes and that of Hadad (III Kings, xi, 14 sqq.) to Psibkhenno II, the last king of the Twenty-first Dynasty. During the following reigns of this dynasty history records nothing but endless civil wars between the two principalities of Thebes and Heracleopolis and feuds between the mercenary lords of the Delta. On the other hand, Assyria was more powerful than ever. Shalmaneser defeated, at Karnak on the Orontes, a Syrian coalition to which one of Sheshonk's successors -- probably Takelot II -- had contributed one thousand men (854 B.C.). Under such circumstances Egypt's influence in Palestine must have dwindled to nothing.

One of the Delta lords, Pedibast, at the death of Sheshonk IV, last king of the Twenty-second Dynasty, succeeded in establishing a new dynasty, which Manetho places at Tanis, although Pedibast was of Bubastite origin. But neither he himself nor his successors could control the situation.Under his successor, Osorkon III, a dynast of Sais, Tefnakhte undertook to supplant him and the many other dynasts, several of whom were claiming the titles and prerogatives of royalty. He had partly succeeded when Piankhi, ruler of the independent kingdom of Napata (see above), overran Egypt as far as the Mediterranean, obliging all the pretenders, Orsokon and Tefnakhte included, to recognize his suzerainty. But as soon as the invaders had withdrawn, Tefnakhte resumed his designs and was eventually successful in subduing Orsokon, who acknowledged himself as vassal. (We must refer to this period the King of Egypt mentioned in IV Kings, xvii, 4, as inciting Osee of Samaria to rebel against Shalmaneser IV.) Tefnakhte's son Bochoris, however, was regarded as the founder of a new dynasty, his father, probably, having died before Orsokon. Scarcely had he reigned six years when Shabaka, Pianki's brother, invaded Egypt in his turn, and so firmly did he entrench himself there that he became the founder of the Twenty-fifth, or Ethiopian Dynasty. Unfortunately for him and his successors, Assyria, having absorbed all the principal states of Syria and Palestine, and holding the others well under control, was now threatening to invade the territory of Egypt. Shabaka, alive to the danger, formed an alliance with Philistia, Juda, Moab, Edom, and Tyre, against Sennacherib, and sent to Syria an army under the command of his nephew Taharka (cf. IV Kings, xix, 9, where Taharka is called King of Ethiopia). The allies were completely defeated, and Sennacherib was beleaguering Jerusalem, which alone, so far, with Tyre, when, to use the words of the Bible, "an angel of the Lord came, and slew in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and weighty-five thousand. And when he arose early in the morning he saw all the bodies of the dead. And Sennacherib King of the Assyrians departing went away, and he returned and abode in Ninive" (IV Kings, xix, 35, 36). But the power of Assyria was not broken for all that, although Taharka, who was now reigning, might have believed it when, twenty-seven years later, he succeeded in repelling Easar-haddon, of which repulse he made great display on the pedestal of a statue of his, drawing on the lists left by Ramses II of Asiatic captured cities to swell his own victory. In 670 the Assyrians appeared again, more formidable than ever, defeated Taharka, captured Memphis, and withdrew after having organized at least Lower Egypt into an Assyrian dependency. Among the princes who hastened to do homage to the King of Assyria the first place is given to Necho of Sais, a descendant of Tefnakhte through Bochoris. Taharka had fled to the south, where he raised fresh troops, and marched on Lower Egypt hoping to recover the lost provinces, but with no other result than to bring back the Assyrians, who routed him again and pursued him almost as far as Thebes (668 B.C.). The reigning family of the Delta, who had sided with him, were sent to Ninevah in chains. Necho was one of them, but he knew how to ingratiate himself with Assurbanipal, who restored him to his Kingdom of Sais. Tanutamon, having succeeded his father Taharka (663 B.C.), undertook in his turn the recovery of Lower Egypt, but with no better success. This time Assurbanipal's army pursued the enemy to Thebes, which was sacked and plundered.

Psamtik, son of Necho, took advantage of the struggle in which his protector, Assurbanipal, had now become involved with Babylonia to free himself from the Syrian allegiance. He succeeded in suppressing practically all the mercenary lords and local dynasties, repaired the long-neglected irrigation system, and gave a strong impulse to commerce. The Twenty-sixth Dynasty, which he introduces, was, as a whole, a period of restoration and great internal prosperity. It was also a period of renascence in art, religion, and literature, marked by a return to archaic traditions. Industrial art flourished as never before. The army was reorganized and strengthened with large contingents of Greek mercenaries, the Libyans having lost their efficiency in becoming Egyptianized. Psamtik does not seem to have made much use of the army, but Necho and his successors could not refrain from interfering with the affairs of Asia. The temptation was great. During the long reign of Psamtik I Assyria had been constantly declining. In 609 he was succeeded by his son Necho, and three years later Ninevah was finally captured, and Assyria had come to an end forever. Necho though this a favourable chance to recover the old Asiatic possessions of Egypt, and marched on Carchemish (cf. II Paralip., xxxv, 20; Jerem., xlvi, 7-9). At Magiddo the King of Juda, Josias, who foolishly persisted in disputing his passage, was routed and mortally wounded (II Paralip. xxxv, 22). This incident brought Necho to Jerusalem, where he deposed Joahaz, the successor of Josias, and put in his place his brother Eliakim, changing his name to Jehoiakim. As for Joahaz, he took him to Egypt (II Paralip., xxxvi, 1-4; cf. IV Kings, xxiii, 29-34). Hearing of Necho's conquest, Nabopolassar, to whom that country had fallen in the division of Assyria's possessions, sent his son Nebuchadnezzar (Nabuchodonosor) to check his advance. Necho was so completely defeated at Charchemish (605 B.C.) that he did not dare to make another stand, and retreated to Egypt; "And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his own country; for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt, from the river of Egypt, unto the river Euphrates" (IV Kings, xxiv, 7). Apries (588-569 B.C.), Necho's second successor, was not more fortunate in a similar attempt. Zedekiah had sent to him for assistance against Nebuchadnezzar (Ezech. xvii, 15), but Apries either retired without fighting (Jerem, xxxvi, 6) or was defeated (Josephus, Antiq. Jud., X, vii, §3), and Jerusalem was captured, and her temple destroyed (587 B.C.). When, however, the remnant of the Jews fled to Egypt, taking Jeremiah with them, Apries received them and allowed them to settle in different cities of the Delta, at Memphis, and in Upper Egypt (Jer., xli, 17-18; xliv, 1) -- Such, very likely was the origin of the Jewish colony established in the island of Elephantine, "before Cambyses", as related in the Judeo-Aramaic papyri recently discovered there (see below, under Twenty-seventh Dynasty). Later, probably after Tyre had finally surrendered to the Chaldeans (574), Apries successfully carried out a naval expedition against Phoenicia (Masp., Hist. anc., 639; Breasted, Hist. of the Anc. Egypt., 409, places that expedition in 587 B.C.).

The reverses of Necho and Apries in Asia did not affect the prosperity of Egypt during the reign of these two pharaohs, any more than did the rivalry of one of his officials, Amasis, whom Apries had sent to suppress a mutiny of the native troops, and who was proclaimed king by them. Apries and Amasis reigned together for some time, and when, a conflict having arisen between the two, Apries was defeated and slain, Amasis gave him an honourable burial. Strange to say, Amasis, who had been the champion of the native element as against the Greeks, now favoured the latter far more than any of his predecessors. He founded for them the city of Naucratis, in the Delta, as a home and market, and they soon made it the most important commercial centre of Egypt. The foreign policy of Amasis, as a rule, was one of prudence; his only conquest was Cyprus, over which, since the days of Thotmos III, Egypt had often exercised suzerainty. He made, however, one fatal mistake: he joined the abortive league formed by Croesus, King of Lydia, against Cyrus, and, although he afterwards carefully avoided crossing the path of the Persian conqueror, the latter's son, Cambyses, taking the word for the deed, did not fail to resent his past inclination.

Cambyses invaded Egypt in 525 B.C., shortly after Psamtik III had succeeded his father. The pharaoh was put to death under cruel circumstances, the tomb of Amasis was violated, his mummy burnt to ashes, and a Persian governor was appointed. Otherwise Cambyses did all he could to conciliate his Egyptian subjects. He assumed the traditional pharaonic titles and ceremonial, and caused himself to be initiated into the mysteries of the goddess Neit. He made good the damages sustained by the temples during the conquest, led an unsuccessful expedition against the oases of the Libyan desert, and was not much happier in a campaign against the independent Kingdom of Napata. Embittered by these reverses he departed, in later years, from his earlier conciliatory policy, and committed sacrilegious acts which exasperated the people against him. Darius I (521-486) completed the canal begun by Necho between the Nile and the Red Sea. He reopened the road from Keft (Coptos) to the Red Sea, garrisoned the oases, and otherwise furthered the prosperity and security of Egypt. In his reorganization of the Persian Empire, which he divided into a number of governments under a central administration, Egypt, with Cyrene, Barca, and Lower Nubia, formed the sixth government, or satrapy. This, however, affected only the garrisoned cities and their respective territories. Elsewhere the old feudal organization was left untouched, and from time to time the local princes availed themselves of their semi-independence to rebel.

After the battle of Marathon (487) the Egyptians revolted and expelled the Persians. But in the following year Achemenes, who had just been appointed satrap by his brother Xerxes I (486-465), brought them back to submission. Of a far more serious character was the insurrection which broke out in 463 under Artaxerxes I (465-425), and which was not quelled until its leader, Inaros (of the house of Psamtik), aided by the Athenians, had routed two successive Persian armies (454). Under Darius II the power of the Persians began to decline. The weakness of their administration at that time is attested by the Judeo-Aramaic papyri recently discovered at Elephantine. From these documents we learn that, while the provincial governor was absent, the commander of the garrison at Syene had been bribed by the Egyptian priests of Chnûb (Chnûm), to plunder and destroy the temple of the Jewish colony at Elephantine. The culprits, it seems, were put to death by the Persian authorities, yet when the victims applied for permission to rebuild their temple, their request was granted only on the condition that they should not in future offer up bloody sacrifices -- a concession, evidently, to the priests of Chnûb, who probably objected to the slaughtering of the ram, an animal sacred to their god. The little colony, we may suppose, did not long enjoy its curtailed privileges; it very probably succumbed to Egyptian fanaticism during the two following dynasties (Stähelin, "Israel in Aegytpen nach neugefundenen Urkunden", 14 sqq.).

Finally, in 404 B.C., the last year of Darius II (424-404) and first year of Artaxerxes II (404-362), a certain Amyrtæos of Saitic birth succeeded in proclaiming Egypt's independence. His six years of reign constitute the Twenty-eighth Dynasty. The Twenty-ninth Dynasty (Mendesian), comprising the reigns of Nepherites, Achoris, and Psammuthis, who took an active part in the wars against Artaxerxes II, lasted twenty years. The Thirtieth Dynasty (Sebennytic) begins with Nectanebo I (378-361), who successfully repelled the Persians. Tachos (360-359), his successor, attempted to invade the Syrian territory, but, as a result of rivalries and dissensions between himself and his namesake Tachos, whom he had appointed as regent, he was supplanted by Nectanebo II (358-342), a cousin of Tachos the regent, and took refuge with Artaxerxes II, at whose court he died. Nectanebo II was at first successful in repelling the attack of Artaxerxes III (Ochus -- 362-338); later, however, he was defeated, and the Persians once more became masters of Egypt (341). The king fled to Ethiopia, and the temples were plundered. It was then that Egypt lost forever the right of being governed by rulers of her own.

III. ANCIENT EGYPTIAN RELIGION

God and man, those two essential terms of every religion, are but imperfectly reflected in the Egyptian religious monuments. A book similar in scope to our Bible certainly never existed in Egypt, and if their different theological schools, or priests of some particular theological school, ever agreed on certain truths about God and man, which they assigned to official didactic writings, such writings have not reached us. Nor is the vast body of religious monuments bequeathed to us by ancient Egypt of such a nature as to compensate for this lack of positive and systematic information. The figured and inscribed monuments discovered in the temples, and especially in the tombs, acquaint us with the names and external aspects of numerous deities, with the material side of the funerary rites, from which they may safely conclude that they admitted the dependency of man on superior beings, and a certain survival of man after death. But as to the essence of these gods, their relation to the world and man as expressed by the worship of which they were the objects, the significance and symbolism of the rites of the dead, the nature of the surviving principle in man, the nature and mode of the survival itself as depending on earthly life, and the like, the monuments are either silent about, or offer us such contradictory and incongruous notions that we are forced to conclude that the Egyptians never evolved a clear and complete system of religious views. What light can be brought out of this chaos we shall concentrate on two chief points: (a) The Pantheon, corresponding to the term God; and (b) The Future Life, as best representing the term Man.

(a) The Egyptian Pantheon. By this term we understand such gods as were officially worshipped in one or more of the various nomes, or in the country at large. We exclude, therefore, the multitude of dæmons or spirits which animated almost everything man came into contact with -- stones, plants, animals -- and the lesser deities which presided over every stage of human life -- birth, naming, etc. The worship they received was of an entirely local and private nature, and we know almost nothing of it.

Each nome had its own chief deity or divine lord, male or female, apparently inherited from the ancient tribes. With each deity an animal, as a rule, but sometimes also a tree or a mineral, was associated. Thus Osiris of Busiris was associated with a pillar, or a trunk of a tree; Hathor of Denderah, with a sycamore; Osiris of Mendes, with a goat; Set of Tanis, with an ass; Buto of the city of the same name, with a serpent; Bast of Bubastis, with a cat; Atûm, or Tûm, of Heliopolis, with a serpent, a lion, or possibly later the bull Mnevis; Ptah of Memphis, with the Bull Apis; Sovek, in the Fayûm and at Ombos (Kôm Ombo), with a crocodile; Anubis of Assiût, with a jackal; Thoth of Hermopolis, with an ibis or a baboon; Amon of Thebes, and Chnûm, at the Cataract, with a ram; Horus of el-Kâb and Edfu, with a hawk. According to some scholars, this association at first was merely symbolical; it was not until the Nineteenth Dynasty that sacred animals, having gradually come to be considered as incarnations, or at least dwelling-places, of the various gods, began to be worshipped as gods (Breasted, "Hist. Anc. Egypt.", 59, 324). But this view, once quite common, is now generally abandoned, and fetishistic animal-worship is now considered as the true basis of the Egyptian religion [cf. Chantepie de la Saussaye, "Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte" (1905), I, 194, sqq.]. In any case the origin of the association of certain animals with certain gods, whether symbolical or not, is unknown; as a rule the same may be said of the various attributes of the various gods and goddesses. We understand that Thoth, being a lunar god, could have been considered the god of time, computation, letters, and science (although we do not know how, being associated with the ibis or baboon, he became a lunar god); but we do not see why the ram-god Chnûm should have been represented as a potter, nor why the cow-goddess, Hathor, and the cat-goddess, Bast, were identified with beauty, joy, and love, while the lioness-deity, Sekhmet, was the goddess of war, and Neith was identified both with war and with weaving. The names of the gods, as a rule, give no clue. At an early date the crude primitive fetishism was somewhat mitigated, when the deities were supposed to reside in statues combining human figures with animal heads.

Triads.-- In other respects gods and goddesses were imagined to be very much like men and women; they ate, drank, married, begat children, and died. Each nome, besides its chief god or goddess, had at least two secondary deities, the one playing the part of a wife or husband to the chief deity, the other that of a son. Thus, in Thebes the group of Amon, Mût (or Ament), and Chons; in Memphis the group of Ptah, Sekhmet, and Nefertem; etc. Sometimes the triads consisted on one god and two goddesses, as at Elephantine, or even three male deities. Those groups were probably first obtained by the fusion of several religious centres into one, the number three being suggested by the human family, or possibly by the family triad Osiris, Isis, and Horus, of the Osiris cycle. In some cases the second element was a mere grammatical duplicate of the first, as Ament, wife of Amen (Amon), and was considered as one with it; it was then natural to identify the son with his parents, and so arose the concept of one god in three forms. There was in this a germ of monotheism. It is doubtful, however, whether it would have developed beyond the bounds of henotheism but for the solar religion which seems to have sprung into existence toward the dawn of the dynastic times, very likely under the influence of the school of Heliopolis. But before we turn to this new phase of the Egyptian religion, we must consider another aspect of the ancient gods which may have furnished the basis of unification of the various local worships.

The Gods of the Dead.-- Gods, being fancied like men, where, like them, subject to death, the great leveller. Each community had the mummy of its god. But in the case of gods, as in that of men, death was not the cessation of all life. With the assistance of magical devices the dead god was simply transferred to another world, where he was still the god of the departed who had been his devotees on earth. Hence two forms of the same god, frequently under to two different names, which eventually led to the conception of distinct gods of the dead. Such were Chent-Ament, the first of the Westerners (the dead) at Abydos, Sokar (or Seker), probably a form of Ptah, at Memphis. Sometimes, however, the god of the dead retained the name he had before, as Anubis at Assiût, Knonyu at Thebes, and Osiris, wherever he began to be known as such.

Legend of Osiris.-- Each of the gods had his own legend. Osiris was the last god who reigned upon the earth, and he was a wise and good king. But his brother Set was a wicked god and killed Osiris, cutting his body into fragments, which he scattered all over the land. Isis, sister and wife of Osiris, collected the fragments, put them together, and embalmed them, with the assistance of her son, Horus, Anubis (here, perhaps, a substitute for Set, who does not seem to have been originally conceived as his brother's slayer), and Nephthys, Set's wife. Isis, then, through her magical art, revives her husband who becomes king of the dead, while Horus defeats Set and reigns on the earth in his father's place. According to another version, Qeb, father of Osiris, and Set put an end to the strife by dividing the land between the two competitors, giving the South to Horus and the North to Set.

Sidereal and Elemental Gods.-- It is generally conceded that some of the gods had a sidereal or elemental character. Horus, of Edfu and el-Kâb (Ilithyaspolis), and Anher, son of This, represented one or other aspect of the sun. Thoth of Hermopolis and Knonthu of Thebes were lunar gods. Min, of Akhmin (Chemmis) and Coptos, represented the cultivable land and Set, of Ombos (near Nakadeh), the desert. Hapi was the Nile, Hathor the vault of heaven. In some cases this sidereal or elemental aspect of the local gods may be primitive, especially among the tribes of Asiatic origin; but in other cases it may be of later date and due to the influence of the solar religion of Re, which, as we have already said, came into prominence, if not into existence, during the early dynastic times.

Solar Gods, Re or Ra.-- That Re was such a local god in representing the sun, is generally taken for granted although by no means proven. We cannot assign him to any locality not furnished with another god of its own. We never find him, like the vast majority of the local gods, associated with a sacred animal, nor is he ever represented with a human figure, except as a substitute for Atûm, or as identified with Horus or some other god. His only representative among men is the pharaoh, who in the earliest dynastic monuments appears as his son. Finally it is difficult to understand how the kings of the southern kingdom, after having extended their rule to the north, should have given up their own patron god, Horus, for a local deity of the conquered land. It looks as if the worship of Re had been inaugurated some time after the reunion of the two lands, and possibly for political reasons. At all events, the solar religion soon became very popular, and it may be said that to the end it remained the state religion of Egypt. Re, like the other gods, had his legend -- or rather myth -- excogitated by the theological school of Heliopolis in connection with the comogenic system of the same school. He had created the world and was king over the earth. In course of time the mortals rebelled against him because he was too old, whereupon he ordered their destruction by the goddess of war, but on the presentation of 7000 jars of human blood he was satisfied and decided to spare men. Tired of living among them, he took his flight to heaven, where, standing in the sacred bark, he sails in the celestial ocean. The fixed stars and the planets are so many gods who play the parts of pilot, steersman, and oarsman. Re rises in the east, conquers the old foe (darkness), spreads light, life, wealth, and joy on all sides, and receives everywhere the applause of gods and men; but now he comes to the western horizon, where, behind Abydos, through an enormous crevice, the celestial waters rush down to the lower hemisphere. The sacred bark follows the eternal river, and, unretarded, the god passes slowly through the kingdom of the night, conquering his foes, solacing his faithful worshipers, only, however, to renew his course over the upper hemisphere, as bright, as vivifying, as beautiful as ever. Soon each phase of the sun's course received a special name and gradually developed into a distinct god; thus we find Harpochrates (Horus's Child) representing morning sun; Atûm, the evening sun; Re, the noon sun; while Harmakhuti (Horus on the two horizons -- Harmachis, supposed to be represented by the great Sphinx) is both the rising and the setting sun.

Cosmogony and Enneads.-- Different cosmogonic systems were excogitated at a very early date (some of them, possibly, before dynastic times) by the various theological schools, principally by the school of Heliopolis. Unfortunately, none of these systems seems to have been handed down in the primitive form. According to one version of the Heliopolitan cosmogony, the principle of all things is the god Nûn, the primordial ocean, in which Atûm, the god of light, lay hidden and alone until he decided to create the world. He begat all by himself Shu, the atmosphere, and Tefnût, the dew. In their turn Shu and Tefnût begat Qeb, the earth, and Nût, the vault of heaven. These two were lying asleep in mutual embrace in the Nûn when Shu, stealing between them, raised Nût on high. The world was formed, and the sun could begin its daily course across the heavens. Qeb and Nût begat Osiris, the cultivatable land and the Nile united in one concept, Set the desert, and the two sisters Isis and Nephthys. To this first ennead, of which Tûm (later supplanted by Re) appears as the head, two others were added, the first of which began with Horus, as son of Osiris and Isis. The three enneads constituted as many dynasties of gods, or demi-gods, who reigned on the earth in predynastic times. We have seen above that the third of these dynasties, called "the shades" (nekues) by Manetho, represents the predynastic kings mentioned on the Palermo Stone. The Heliopolitan Ennead became very popular, and every religious center was now ambitious to have a similar one, the same gods and order being generally retained, except that the local deity invariably appeared at the head of the combination.

It has long been customary to assert that in Egypt human life was compared to the course of the sun, and that Osiris was nothing but the sun considered as dead. It is far more correct, however, to say, with Professor Maspéro [Revue de l'histoire des religions (1887), XV, 307 sqq.], that the course of the sun was compared to that of human life. Osiris is not a sun that has set, but the sun that has set is an Osiris; this is so true that when the sun reappears on the eastern horizon, he is represented as the youth, Horus, son of Osiris.

The great prominence given to Re and Osiris by the Heliopolitan School of theology not only raised the Egyptian belief to a higher plane, but brought about a certain unification of it -- a consolidation, so to speak, of the local worships. Naturally, the local gods retained their original external appearance, but they were now clothed with the attributes of the new Heliopolitan deity, Re, and were slowly identified with him. Every god now became a sun-god under some aspect; and in some cases the name of the Heliopolitan god was added to the name of the local god, as Sobek-Re, Chnûm-Re, Ammon-Re. It was a step toward monotheism, or at any rate towards a national henotheism. This tendency must have been encouraged by the pharaohs in their capacity rather of political than religious rulers of the nation. There could be no perfect and lasting political unity as long as the various nomes retained their individual gods.

It is significant that in the only two periods when the pharaohs seem to have had absolute political control of Egypt -- viz. from the Fourth to the Fifth and from the Eighteenth to the Twentieth Dynasty -- the systems of Re, in the former period, and his Theban form, Ammon-Re, in the latter period, come clearly to the front, while the local religious systems fall into the background. These, however, though they were no more than tolerated, seemed to constitute a menace to political unity. The effort of Amenhotep IV to introduce the cult of his only god, Aton (see above, in Dynastic History; Second Period), was perhaps not prompted exclusively by a religious ideal, as is generally believed. A similar attempt in favour of Re and his ennead was perhaps made by the Memphite kings. From Khafre, the second king of the fourth dynasty, to the end of the sixth dynasty, the name Re is a part of the name of almost every one of those kings, and the monuments show that during that period numerous temples were erected to the chief of the Heliopolitan Ennead in the neighbouring nomes. Such encroachments of the official religion on the local forms of worship may have caused the disturbance which marked the passage from the fifth to the sixth dynasty and the end of the latter. That such disturbances were not merely of a political nature is clear in the light of the well-known facts that the royal tombs and the temples of that period were violated and pillaged, if not destroyed, and that the mortuary statues of several kings, those of Khafre in particular, were found, shattered into fragments, at the bottom of a pit near these pyramids. Evidently, those devout "sons of Re" were not in the odour of sanctity with some of the Egyptian priests, and the imputation of impiety brought against them, as recorded by Heroditus (II, 127, 128; cf. Diodrus Siculus, I, 14), may not have been quite as baseless as is assumed by some modern scholars (Maspéro, Histoire Ancienne, pp. 76 sq.).

If the foregoing sketch of the Egyptian religion is somewhat obscure, or even produces a self-contradictory effect, this may perhaps be attributed to the fact that the extremely remote periods considered (mostly, in fact, prehistoric) are known to us from monuments of a later date, where they are reflected in superimposed outlines, comparable to a series of pictures of one person at different stages of life, and in different attitudes and garbs, taken successively on the same photographic plate. The Egyptians were a most conservative people; like other people, they were open to new religious concepts, and accepted them, but they never got rid of the older ones, no matter how much the older might conflict with the newer. However, if the writer is not mistaken, two prominent features of their religion are sufficiently clear: first, animal fetishism from beginning to end in a more or less mitigated form; secondly, superposition, in the early Memphite dynasties, of the sun-worship, the sun being considered not as creator, but as organizer of the world, from an eternally pre-existent matter, perhaps the forerunner of the demiurge of the Alexandrine school.

(b) The Future Life. As early as the predynastic times the Egyptians believed that man was survived in death by a certain principle of life corresponding to our soul. The nature of this principle, and the conditions on which its survival depended, are illustrated by the monuments of the early dynasties. It was called the ka of the departed, and was imagined as the counterpart of the body it had animated, being of the same sex, remaining throughout its existence of the same age as at the time of death, and having the same needs and wants as the departed had in his lifetime. It endured as long as the body, hence the paramount importance the Egyptians attached to the preservation of the bodies of their dead. They generally buried them in ordinary graves, but always in the dry sand of the desert, where moisture could not affect them; among the higher classes, to whom the privilege of being embalmed was first restricted, the mummy was sealed in a stone coffin and deposited in a carefully concealed rock-excavation over which a tomb was built. Hence, also, the presence in the tombs of life-like statues of the deceased to which the ka might cling, should the mummy happen to meet destruction. But the ka could also die of hunger or thirst, and for this reason food and drink were left with the body at the time of burial, fresh supplies being deposited from time to time on top of the grave, or at the entrance to the tomb. The ka, or "double" as this word is generally interpreted, is confined to the grave or tomb, often called "the house of the ka". There near the body, it now lives alone in darkness as once, in union with the body, it lived in the sunny world. Toilet articles, weapons against possible enemies, amulets against serpents, are also left in the tomb, together with magic texts and a magic wand which enable it to make use of these necessaries.

Along with the ka, the texts mention other surviving principles of a less material nature, the ba and the khu. Like the ka, the ba resides in the body during man's life, but after death is free to wander where it pleases. It was conceived as a bird, and is often represented as such, with a human head. The khu is luminous; it is a spark of the divine intelligence. According to some Egyptologists, it is a mere transformation which the ka undergoes when, in the hereafter, it is found to have been pure and just during lifetime; it is then admitted to the society of the gods; according to others, it is a distinct element residing in the ba. Simultaneously with the concepts of the ba and the khu, the Egyptians developed the concept of a common abode for the departed souls, not unlike the Hades of the Greeks. But their views varied very much, both as to the location of that Hades and as to its nature. It is very likely that, originally, every god of the dead had a Hades of his own; but, as those gods were gradually either identified with Osiris or brought into his cycle as secondary infernal deities, the various local concepts of the region of the dead were ultimately merged into the Osirian concept. According to Professor Maspéro, the kingdom of Osiris was first thought to be located in one of the islands of the Northern Delta whither cultivation had not yet extended. But when the sun in its course through the night had become identified with Osiris, the realm of the dead was shifted to the region traversed by the sun during the night, wherever that region might be, whether under the earth, as more commonly accepted, or in the far west, in the desert, on the same plane with the world of the living, or in the north-eastern heavens beyond the great sea that surrounds the earth.

As the location, so does the nature of the Osirian Hades seem to have varied with different schools; and here, unfortunately, as in the case of the Egyptian pantheon, the monuments exhibit different views, superimposed one upon the other. We seem, however, the discern two traditions which we might call the pure Osiris and the Re-Osiris traditions. According to the former tradition, the aspiration of all the departed is to be identified with Osiris, and to live with him in his kingdom of Earu, or Yalu, fields -- such a paradise as the Egyptian peasant could fancy. There ploughing and reaping are carried on as upon the earth, but with hardly any labour, and the land is so well irrigated by the many branches of another Nile that wheat grows seven ells. All men are equal; all have to answer the call for work without distinction of former rank. Kings and grandees, however, can be spared that light burden by having ushebtis (respondents) placed in their tombs. These ushebtis were small statuettes with a magical text which enabled them to impersonate the deceased and answer the call for him.

To procure the admission of the deceased to this realm of happiness his family and friends had to perform over him the same rites as were performed over Osiris by Isis, Nephthys, Horus, and Anubis. Those rites consisted mostly of magical formulæ and incantations. The mummification of the body was considered an important condition, as Osiris was supposed to have been mummified. It seems, also, that in the beginning at least, the Osirian doctrine demanded a certain dismemberment of the body previous to all other rights, as the body of Osiris had been dismembered by Set. Possibly, also, this took place in the pre-dynastic times, when the bodies of the dead appear to have been intentionally dismembered and then put together again for burial (Chantepie de la Saussaye, op. cit., I, 214). At all events, Diodorus narrates that the surgeon who made the first incision on the body previous to the removal of the viscera had to take to flight immediately after having accomplished his duty, while the mob pretended to drive him away with stones (Diodorus Siculus, I, 91), as though he impersonated Set. This custom, however, of dismembering bodies may be older that the Osirian doctrine, and may explain it, rather than being explained from it (Chantepie de la Saussaye, op. cit., I, 220). When all the rites had been duly performed the deceased was pronounced Osiris so-and-so -- he had been identified with the god Osiris. He could now proceed to the edge of the great river beyond which are the Earu fields. Turn-face, the ferryman, would carry him across, unless the four sons of Horus would bring him a craft to float over, or the hawk of Horus, or the ibis of Thoth, would condescend to transport him on its pinions to his destination. Such were, during the Memphite dynasties, the conditions on which the departed soul obtained eternal felicity; they were based on ritual rather than on moral purity. It seems, however, that already at that time some texts show the deceased declaring himself, or being pronounced, free of certain sins. He is represented appearing before Osiris, surrounded by forty-two judges. His heart is weighed on scales by Horus and Anubis, over against a feather, a symbol of justice, while Thoth registers the result of the operation. In the meantime the deceased recites a catalogue of forty-two sins (so-called "negative confession") of which he is innocent. Between the scales and Osiris there is what seems to be a female hippopotamus, appearing ready to devour the guilt souls; but there was no danger of falling into her jaws, as the embalmers had been careful to remove the heart and replace it by a stone scarab inscribed with a magical spell which prevented the heart from testifying against the deceased. The concept of retribution implied by the judgment very likely originated with the School of Abydos [see Maspéro, "Revue de l'histoire des religions" (1887), XV, 308 sqq.].

According to another tradition, which is represented along with the foregoing in the Pyramid Texts, the deceased is ultimately identified not with Osiris himself, but with Re identified with Osiris and his son Horus. His destination is the bark of Re on the eastern horizon, wither he is transported by the same ferryman Turn-face. Once on the sacred bark, the deceased may bid defiance to all dangers and enemies, he enjoys absolute and perfect felicity, leaves the kingdom of Re-Osiris, and follows Re-Horus across the heavens to the region of the living gods. The same concept was resumed by the Theban School. An important variant of this Re-Osiris tradition is to be found in two books due to the Theban Ammon-Re School of theology, the "Book of what there is in the Duat" (Hades) and the "Book of the Gates". In both compositions the course of Re in the region of darkness is divided into twelve sections corresponding to the twelve hours of night, but in the latter book each section is separated by a gate guarded by giant serpents. Some of these sections are presided over by the old gods of the dead, Sokar and Osiris, with their faithful subjects. The principle feature of these two books is the concept of a retribution which we now meet clearly expressed for the first time. While the innocent soul, after a series of transformations, reaches at last, on the extreme limit of the lower world, the bark of Re, where it joins the happy crowd of the gods, the criminal one is submitted to various tortures and finally annihilated (see, however, below under IV).

IV. LITERARY MONUMENTS OF ANCIENT EGYPT

The earliest specimens of Egyptian literature are the so-called Pyramid Texts engraved on the walls of the halls and rooms of the pyramids of Unis (Fifth Dynasty) and Teti II, Pepi I, Mernere, and Pepi II (Sixth Dynasty). They represent two ancient rituals of the dead, the older of which, as is generally conceded, antedates the dynastic times. The texts corresponding to this one are mostly incantations and magic prayers supposed to protect the deceased against serpents and scorpions, hunger and thirst, and old age. The gods are made to transmit to the deceased the offerings placed in the tomb; nay, these offerings are so placed in his power that he positively eats and digests them, thus assimilating their strength and other desirable qualities. In these last two features Professor Maspéro sees an indication that although the concept of the ba had already been superimposed on that of the ka, when that ritual first came into existence, yet anthropophagical sacrifices, if no longer in use, were still fresh in the memory of the Egyptians. This high, probably predynastic, antiquity, is confirmed by peculiarities of language and orthography, which in more than one case seem to have puzzled the copyists of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties (Maspéro, in Revue de l'hist. des religions", XII (1885), pp. 125 sqq.]. The other ritual represented in the Pyramid Texts is the Book of Funerals, already known in several recensions and published by Professor E. Schiaparelli (Il libro de' funerali degli Antichi Egiziani, Rome, 1881-2). It is supposed to be the repetition of the rites by which Isis and Horus had animated the mummy of Osiris with the life he had as god of the dead. The principal ceremony consisted in the opening of the mouth and eyes of the mummy, so that the deceased, in his second life, could enjoy the mortuary offerings and guide and express himself in the next world. For the details of this exceedingly interesting ritual, we refer the reader to the excellent analysis of Professor Maspéro in the "Revue de l'Histoire des Religions" [XV (1887), 158 sqq.]. These two books were very popular with the Egyptians down to the end of the Ptolemaic times, especially the second one, which is profusely illustrated in the tomb of Seti I.

The Book of the Dead. Next in antiquity comes the Book of the Dead, the most widely known monument of Egyptian literature. Numerous copies of it are to be found in all the principle museums of Europe. It may be best described as a general illustrated guidebook of the departed soul in Amenti (the Region of the West). There, whatever his belief as to the survival of man in the hereafter, the deceased found what he had to do to be admitted, what ordeals he would have to undergo before reaching his destination, what spirits and genii he would have to propitiate, and how to come out of all this victorious. Broadly speaking, the book can be divided into three sections: (1) "Book of the Going Out by Daytime" (cc. i-xvi), a title generally, though wrongly, extended to the whole book; (2) Chapters xvii-cxxiv: fitting the deceased for admission (xvii-xci) to the kingdom of Osiris, his itinerary thereto, whether by water or overland (xcii-cii, cxii-cxix), and his settlement therein (ciii-cx), without further formality than conciliating the ferryman or the guardian genii with certain incantations and magical prayers recited with the right intonations; in case the deceased believed in retribution, before gaining admission he had to repair to the Hall of Justice, there to be tried by Osiris (cxxiii-cxxv); (3) Chapter cxxv to the end; practically another guidebook for the special profit of the followers of the School of Abydos. It begins with the trial, after which it goes over pretty much the same ground as the common guide, with variations peculiar to the doctrine of the school. For further details see the masterly review by Maspéro of Naville's edition of the Book of the Dead during the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties, in "Revue de l'histoire des religions", XV (1887), pp. 263-315. The most important chapters, from a theological viewpoint, are perhaps the seventeenth, a compendius summary of what the deceased was supposed to know on the nature of the gods with whom he was to identify himself, and the one hundred and twenty-fifth, where, along with the disclaimer of forty-two offenses, we find also an enumeration of several good works, as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, making offerings to the dead, and sacrificing to the gods. The Book of the Dead naturally received many additions in the course of centuries, as new concepts evolved from the older ones. It would not be correct, however, to conclude that all the chapters not found in the older copies are of recent date. Comparison between various copies of known date show that, as a rule, they were mere abstracts from the standard copies preserved by the corporations of embalmers, or undertakers, the deceased individual having, as a rule, ordered during his lifetime a copy to be prepared according to his own belief and means. The fact that certain chapters, like lxiv, were assigned by the manuscripts to what seem to us remotre dates, such as the reigns of King Khufu (Cheops), of the fourth, or King Usaphais, of the first, dynasty, does not prove that these chapters were thought to be older than the others; the reverse is more likely to be the correct view. The bulk of the chapters were believed by the Egyptians to antedate the human dynastic times, and, as Professor Maspéro remarks, the discovery of the Pyramid Texts, to which the Book of the Dead is closely related, shows that this idea was not altogether futile (op. cit., XV, 299). The Book of the Dead contains several passages in common with the ritual of the dead represented by the Pyramid Texts, and its first fifteen chapters were likewise read at burials, but otherwise it constitutes a distinct type. The Book of the Dead occurs in two recensions: the Theban (Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasty) and the Saitic (Twenty-sixth Dynasty). The latter which, naturally, is the longer (165 chapter), was published by Lepsius (Das Todtenbuch der Aegypter, Leipzig, 1842), from a Turin papyrus. Thr first two translations of the Book of the Dead by Birch (in Bunsen, "Egypt's Place in Universal History", V, 66-333) and Pierret (Le Livre des Morts des Anciens Egyptiens, Paris, 1882) are based on that edition. In 1886 E. Naville published a critical edition of the Theban recension, "Das ägyptische Todtenbuch der XVIII. bis XX. Dynastie", Berlin, 1886. In 1901 Dr. E. A. W. Budge published a translation of that same recension, but augmented with a considerable number of chapters (in all, 160) from the new Theban manuscripts and 16 chapters from the Saitic recension (The Book of the Dead, London, 1901). For further bibliographic details see Budge, "The Papyrus of Ani" (London, 1895, 371 sqq.).

Substitutes for the Book of the Dead. Other books similar in scope to the Book of the Dead, and often substituted for it in tombs, are: (1) "The Book of the Respirations communicated by Isis to her brother Osiris to restore a new life to his soul and body and renew all his limbs so that he may reach the horizon with his father Re, and his soul may rise to the heavens in the disk of the moon, and his body shine in the stars of Orion on the bosom of Nût; in order that this may also happen to Osiris N." This book has so far been found only with the mummies of the priests and priestesses of Amon-Re. It not only makes allusion to the formulæ and acts by means of which the resurrection is effected, but also treats of the life after death (tr. by P. J. Horrack in "Records of the Past", IV, 119 sqq.). A variation of this book under the title "Another Chapter of Coming Forth by Day, in order not to let him [the deceased] absorb impurities in the necropolis, but to let him drink truth, eat truth, accomplish all transformations he may please, to restore a new life" etc. (as above) was published by Weidemann, "Hieratische Texte aus den Musee zu Berlin u. Paris" (Leipzig, 1879). (2) "The Lamentations of Isis and Nephthys" (tr. by Horrack, op. cit., II, 117 sqq.). (3) "The Book of the Glorification of Osiris", a variation of the preceding, published by Pierret from a Louvre papyrus. (4) The "Book of the Wandering of Eternity" published by Bergmann, "Das Buch vom Durchwandel der Ewigkeit" in "Sitzungsber. d. K. K. Ak. d. Wiss. in Wien", 1877.

Mythological Compositions. A different group of funeral books is represented by certain mythological compositions. They consist principally of figures relating to the various diurnal and nocturnal phases of the sun, accompanied with explanatory legends. The oldest of such compositions can be assigned to the Eighteenth Dynasty, and refers to both daily and nightly courses of the sun, the two being often combined in one picture in two sections. In later times the nocturnal aspect of the sun prevails, and the composition becomes more and more funereal in scope, until the diurnal solar symbols disappear almost entirely (see Devéria, "Catalogue" etc. pp. 1-15). Several of the figures are borrowed from the Book of the Dead.

Book of the Duat. Closely related to these mythological compositions is the "Book of what there is in the Duat" (or Lower Hemisphere, as commonly, though perhaps wrongly, understood. See below, under Astronomy). It consist of a hieroglyphic text with numerous mythological or symbolical illustrations describing the nocturnal navigation of the sun (represented as the ram-headed god Chnûm) on the river Uernes (cf. the xxx of the Greeks) during the twelve hours of the night, through as many halls. To each hall corresponds one of the successive modifications through which every being was supposed to be brought back from death to a new life. Such modifications are effected by the deities in charge of the various halls, who, in addition, contribute, either by towing or some other mysterious way, to the progress of the solar bark on the Uernes, typifying that of the regeneration. However, this process of regeneration is not accomplished in Chnûm himself but in the god Sokari, who plays the part of the dead sun. The deceased, who is never mentioned by name, appears as a mere figurant, or rather an onlooker. All those who take part in the action seem to be permanently settled in the Duat, with no other apparent purpose than to play their own parts on the passage of the solar bark. This is the case even with the damned, who, when the time of retribution comes at the end of the tenth, and during the eleventh, hour, impersonate the enemies of Osiris, and for the time being are submitted to atrocious torments and even annihilated. Whether one is justified, as is generally granted, in seeing in this last point a proof that the Egyptians as a people believed in eternal retribution, does not appear quite certain if we consider the highly mystical character of the book, the understanding of which was the privilege of a few initiated. For further details see the introduction to and analysis of that book by Devéria ("Catalogue" etc., pp. 15-39. See also Jéquier, "Livre de ce qu'il a dans l'Hades", Paris, 1894).

Ritual of the Embalming. To close the above remarks on the funereal literature we must mention the Ritual of Embalming, published by Professor Maspéro (Notices et Extraits des Manuscripts etc., t. XXIV, Paris, 1882).

Liturgies. The religion of the living, if we may so express ourselves, is far from being as largely represented in Egyptian literature as that of the dead. Yet we have a few important works, such as the ritual, or rather the liturgy, of Osiris in his temple at Abydos, of which an illustrated edition has been preserved on the walls of that temple (published by Loret, "Le Rituel dy culte divin journalier en Egypte", 1902), and the liturgy of the Amon-worship contained in a Berlin papyrus (O. v. Lemm, Ritualbuch des Amondienstes, 1882). The litany of the sun has been translated by Neville, in "Records of the Past", VIII, 103 sqq.; also a fragment of the legend of Re to which we have already alluded (op. cit. VI, 103 sq.) and several hymns to Osiris (op. cit., New Series, VI, 17 sq.), the Nile (op. cit., New Series, III, 46 sqq.), and Amon-Re (in Maspéro, "Histoire ancienne", pp. 328 sqq.; Grébaut, "Hymne à Ammon-Ra", Paris, 1875; cf. Stern in Zeitschrift für äegyptische Sprache", 1877, and Brugsch, "Religion u. Mythologie der alten Aegypter", Leipzig, 1885, pp. 690 sqq.). From the point of view of composition and style these hymns are the most remarkable literary products of Egypt, as they are the most striking specimens of the monotheistic tendencies which developed under the Eighteenth-Twentieth Dynasties as a result of the political supremacy of Thebes. Not less worthy are the hymns composed by Amenophis IV in honour of his sole god Aton (see the specimen published by Breasted, "History of the Ancient Egyptians", pp. 273 sqq.).

Moral. Several Egyptians literary compositions of a moral nature have reached us. The two oldest are attributed to Kagemme, vizier of King Snefrû, and Ptahhotep, vizier and chief judge under King Isesi, last but one of the fifth dynasty. Both compositions, preserved in a manuscript of the Twelfth Dynasty, consist of apophthegms and proverbs of a rather positive and practical nature, as "A slight failure is enough to make vile a great man" (Kagemme), or "A docile son shall be happy on account of his obedience; he shall grow old and get favour", or "If you are a wise man, fix your house pleasantly, love your wife, do not quarrel with her, give her food and jewels, because this makes her comely, give her perfumes and pleasures during your life. She is a treasure which must be worthy of its owner" (Ptahhotep). Under the Twelfth Dynasty we have the teaching of Amenemhet I, where the old king warns his son and successor, Usertesen, against placing too much confidence in, and being too intimate with, those around him, exemplifying his teaching from his own experience (translated in "Records of the Past", II, p. 9 sqq.). Of a much higher order and wider scope are the counsel that Ani, a scribe of the Nineteenth Dynasty, gives to his son, Khons-Hotep: "Let thine eyes observe the deeds of God; it is he that strikes whatsoever is stricken. Piety to the gods is the highest virtue"; "It is I that gave thee to thy mother, but it is she that bore thee, and while she was carrying thee she suffered many pains. When the time of her delivery arrived thou wert born and she carried thee like the veriest yoke, her pap in thy mouth, for three years. Thou didst grow, and thy filthiness never so far disgusted her as to make her cry out: 'Oh! what am I doing?' Thou wert sent to school. She was anxious about thee every day, bringing thee meat and drink from home. Thou didst take a house and wife of thine own, but never forget the pains of childbed that though didst cost to thy mother; give her not cause to complain of thee, lest perchance she lift up her hands to the divinity, and he give ear to her will"; "Keep this in mind whenever thou hast to make a decision: Even as the most aged die thou also shalt lie down among them. There is no exception; even for him whose life is without blame, the same lot awaits him as well. Thy death messenger will come to thee, too, to carry thee away. Discourses will avail thee nothing, for he is coming, yea, he is ready even now. Do not begin to say: 'I am still but a child, I whom thou takest off.' Thou knowest not how thou shalt die. Death comes to the suckling babe; yea, to him who is yet in the womb, as well as to the old, old man. See, I tell thee things for thy good, which thy shall ponder in thy heart before acting. In them thou shalt find happiness and all evil shall be put far from thee" (tr, of Chabas, "L'Egyptologie", Paris, 1876-8).

History. Egyptian historical literature is somewhat illustrated from what we have said of the sources of chronology (see above, II, subsection Chronology). In sharp contrast with the aridity which generally characterizes such documents, the so-called prose-poem of Pentaur stands alone so far. Pentaur was the name of the copyist, not of the author, as was long believed. Its subject is an episode of the famous campaign of Ramses II against the Hittites. When taken by surprise he, with only the household troops and a few officers who happened to be there, bravely charged the van of the enemy who were in pursuit of his defeated army, and so brilliantly successful was he that the rout was turned into a victory. The work displays a good deal of literary skill and is the closest approach to an epic to be found in Egyptian literature (Breasted, "Hist. of the Anc. Egyptians", 320; cf. Maspéro, "Hist. Anc.", 272 sq.). Note less remarkable, perhaps, although less pretentious in point of style are: (1) the long autobiography of Uni, under three successive kings (Teti II, Pepi I, and Mernere) of the sixth dynasty, the longest funerary inscription and the most important historical document of that time (Breasted, "Anc. Rec. of Egypt", I, 134 sq.); (2) the famous stele of Piankhi (see above, II. under Dynastic History; Second Period) which Professor Breasted calls the clearest and most rational account of a military expedition which has survived from ancient Egypt (Hist. of the Anc. Egyptians, 370); (3) the great Papyrus Harris, a huge roll one hundred and thirty feet long, the longest document from the Early Orient. It contains an enormous inventory of the gifts of Ramses III to the three chief divinities of Egypt, a statement of his achievements abroad, and his benefactions to his people at home (op. cit., 347).

Fiction. If history proper is not more largely represented in Egyptian literature, it is because its naturally positive and dry character, which the structure of the Egyptian language made it difficult to disguise, was not in harmony with the highly imaginative Egyptian mind. No doubt the Egyptians were proud of their kings; but from one end of the country to the other the waters of the Nile reflected temples and mortuary chapels without number, on the walls of which the achievements of the pharaohs were spread in gorgeous inscriptions and reliefs. That was all the history they needed. It furnished them with historical outlines which their fertile imaginations filled out with stories or tales in their own taste, tales in the style of the "Arabian Nights", where animals and mummies spoke like ordinary folks, as for instance in the tale of "The Two Brothers", from the Nineteenth Dynasty ("Records of the Past", II, 137 sqq.) and the story of Satni-Khâmois from Ptolemaic times (op. cit., IV, 131 sq.). In "The Doomed Prince", Twentieth Dynasty (op. cit. II, 153 sq.), men fly like birds; in "The Shipwrecked", Twelfth Dynasty (translated, with all the others, in Maspéro, "Les contes populaires de l'Egypte ancienne", 3rd ed., Paris, 1905) the hero is shipwrecked on the island of Ka (one of the popular conceptions of the Land of the Dead), where a gigantic serpent addresses him with a human voice and treats him with the utmost kindness. In "The Daughter of the Prince of Bakhtan", Twentieth Dynasty, the prince's younger daughter is delivered from a demon or spirit by a statue of the god Khansu for which he had sent to Thebes. Sometimes, however, the action remains within the limits of the natural order, and the interest consists in some extraordinary change of fortune, as in the case of Sinuhit, Twelfth Dynasty, or in some clever stratagem, as in "How Thutiy captured Joppa", Twentieth Dynasty, and in the story of Ramsinitos (Herod, II, 121), Saitic times. The dramatis personæ of such tales and stories are often persons of royal blood, the pharaoh himself not infrequently playing the principal part; and the names which they bear, as a rule, are real historic names, so that in some cases it is not clear, at first sight, whether one has to deal with history or with fiction. More frequently, however, the names have been selected at random, sometimes from proper names, sometimes from the prænomina, or even from popular nicknames. Moreover, chronology, as is usual in popular fiction, is grossly disregarded. In the story of "Satni-Khâmois", for instance, Memephtah, instead of appearing as the brother of the hero, is alluded to as a remote predecessor of Ramses II (Usirmari of the tale, a prænomen of Ramses II in his youth). This literature of historical fiction was evidently very popular in Egypt at all times and in all classes of society. That it was chiefly from this source that Heroditus collected most of his notices of the ancient kings of Egypt is evident from the chronological confusion and the great mixture of names, prænomina, and nicknames which prevail in his writings. See on this all-important point the very interesting introduction of Prof. Maspéro to his "Contes populaires de l'ancienne Egypte" (3rd ed., Paris, 1905).

Astronomy. We have no special treatise on astronomy written by ancient Egyptians in book form. The monuments, however, the temples and tombs especially, give us a fair idea of their astronomical knowledge. On the whole their notions were rather elementary. They knew the zodiac and the principal constellations, and had special names for Orion (Sahu) and Sirius (Sopdit), the former being sacred to Osiris and the latter to Isis, and for the thirty-six decani which presided over the thirty-six decades of the year. They had compiled tables of the rising and setting of a great many, if not all, of the stars visible to the naked eye. The knew the difference between fixed stars and planets, and the apparently retrograde motion of Mars at certain points of the year had not escaped their attention. beyond this they knew probably little or nothing (see Ginzel, "Handbuch der mathematischen u. technischen Chronologie", I, 153). We have seen above (II., subsection Chronology) how the Egyptians used what they knew of astronomy for the division of time and its computation. They fancied the earth round and flat, surrounded with mountains beyond which flowed a large river which they called Uernes (cf. the Ouranos of the Greeks). At the four cardinal points the mountains rose higher and supported the celestial vaults, which they imagined as solid, although transparent. Over this vault flowed the celestial waters on which the sun, and the moon, and the stars floated in barks. The sun at the end of every day went out through the western mountains, and sailed on the Uernes first northward, then southward to the mountain of the east, where he entered our world again through a large gate. Egyptian mythology saw in the celestial vault an immense cow (Hathor), or a woman, the goddess Nût, whom Shu (the atmosphere) had separated from her husband Qeb, or Sib (the earth) and who brought forth the sun every morning, and swallowed it every evening (Maspéro in Revue de l'historie des religions", XV, 269 sqq.). The many representations of the celestial vault in tombs and on the inner sides of the lids of sarcophagi are purely mythological (op, cit., I, 151).

Mathematics. Our earliest Egyptian treatise on mathematics is the Rhind Papyrus of the British Museum [ed. Eisenlohr, Ein mathematiches Handbuch der alten Aegypter, 1877; L. Rodet in Jour. de la Soc. Math. de France, VI (1878), 139 sqq.]; it dates back to the Nineteenth Dynasty. It contains: (a) several theorems of plane geometry with rules for measuring solids; (b) a manual of the calculator on a purely arithmetical basis, not algebraic. [Rodet in Jour. Asiatique (1881), XVIII, 184 sq., 390 sq.]. The numerical system was decimal, and it contained figures for one and for each power of ten; these figures were repeated as many times as contained in the number to be expressed. With the exception of two-thirds, the only fraction which they could write with one sign were those having one as a numerator.

Astrology. Among the documents belonging to this science the most important is a fragmentary astrological calendar (British Museum) written during the Nineteenth Dynasty. It contains a list of the things which it is proper to do or to avoid on each day of the year. The reason why such a day was fas or nefas was ordinarily taken from some mythological tradition. The Greeks and Romans were not ignorant of this science, but the name "Egyptian days" (dies Ægyptiaci), by which they designated it, shows clearly that they borrowed it from Egypt.

Medicine. The Museum of Berlin preserves a copy of an Egyptian treatise on medicine, said to have been completed by, or at least under, kings of the First and Second Dynasties. There is besides, in the University Library of Leipzig, a papyrus commonly known as the Ebers papyrus, containing a copy (Eighteenth Dynasty) of another treatise attributed to King Cheops of the Fourth Dynasty. From these two documents and others of less importance we may infer that the Egyptians new little about theoretical medicine, as, for religious reasons, they were not allowed to study anatomy. Practical medicine, on the other hand, was so far developed among them that the Egyptian physicians were those most highly esteemed by the Greeks and the Romans. The names given to diseases are not always clear, but the description of symptoms is often sufficiently detailed to enable a physician to identify them. Pharmaceutical science was till more advanced. Four kinds of remedies are to be found in the recipes: ointments, potions, plasters, clysters; they were usually taken from vegetables, sometimes from minerals (as sulphate of copper, salt, nitre, memphitic stone); the raw flesh, blood (fresh or dried up), hair, and horn of animals were also used, especially to reduce inflammations. The elements of such remedies were first mashed, boiled, and strained, then diluted in water, beer, infusions of oats, milk, oil, and even human urine. But the Egyptians believed that not all diseases were of natural origin; some were caused by evil spirits who obsessed the patients.

For Egyptian Art see Temple.

V. THE COPTIC CHURCH

The Church of the Copts or Egyptians, the usual modern name for the Church of Alexandria, though very often arbitrarily restricted to the period beginning with its secession (451) from the Catholic Church under its patriarch Dioscurus (q. v.) when it became a distinctly national church. The word Copt is an adaptation of the Arabic Qibt or Qubt (a corruption of Greek Aigyptios). The Arab conquerors thus designated the old inhabitants of Egypt (in vast majority followers of Dioscurus) in contradistinction both to themselves and to the Melchites of Greek origin and language who were still in communion with the Catholic Church, but have since drifted within the orbit of the so-called Orthodox, i.e., schismatic Greek, Church. A general article on the Coptic Church will be found under ALEXANDRIA, CHURCH OF. Special features of importance are treated under the titles ALEXANDRIA, COUNCILS OF; GNOSTICISM; MONASTICISM; PERSECUTION; SACRAMENTS; VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE. See also ATHANASIUS; CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA; DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA; MARK; THEOPHILUS, PATRIARCH OF ALEXANDRIA; CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA; ORIGEN; DIOSCURUS; MELCHITES; MISSIONS. In the present article we shall treat in particular the origins and constitution of the Coptic Church, especially the question of its episcopate, to the Council of Nicea (325). We shall close with a short sketch of the present condition of both the Jacobite and the Uniate branches of the Coptic Church, chiefly from the point of view of their organization.

1. Early Christianity in Egypt. We have no direct evidence of Christianity having existed in Egypt until Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220) when it had already spread over the land. What we know of the Church of Egypt before that time is exclusively through inferences or unconfirmed traditions preserved principally by Eusebius (see below). Thus we may infer the existence of Christianity in Egypt during the second century from the fact that under Trajan a Greek version of the "Gospel According to the Hebrews" was being circulated there (Duchesne, Histoire Ancienne de l'Eglise, I, 126). We know that this gospel was the book of the Judeo-Christians. Its very name points to the existence at the same date of another Christian community, recruited from among the Gentiles. This, presumably, followed another Gospel which Clement of Alexandria calls "the Gospel According to the Egyptians". (On the Gospel of the Egyptians, see Harnack, Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur, I, 1, pp. 612-622; on the Gospel of the Hebrews, ibid., pp. 631-49). This writer quotes it along with the "Gospel According to the Hebrews". However, he clearly distinguishes both from the canonical Gospels, which shows that those two apocrypha were then mere relics of the past, or were at least old enough to be entitled to some consideration in spite of their uncanonical character. Some writers, as Bardenhewer, (Geschichte der altchristliche Literatur, I, 387), think that the "Gospel According to the Egyptians" owed its name to its diffusion among the Egyptians throughout the land, in contradistinction to some other Gospel, canonical or uncanonical, in use in Alexandria. In this case we might conclude furthermore to the existence of a third Christian community, consisting of native Egyptians, as it is difficult to suppose that two Hellenistic communities would have used two different Gospels. But we have no evidence of a native church having existed at as early a period as suggested by the elimination of the Gospel of the Egyptians from the canon at the time of Clement of Alexandria.

Again, organized Christianity at an early date in Egypt is, indirectly at least, attested by the activity of the Gnostic schools in that country in the third and fourth decades of the second century. Eusebius is authority that "Basilides the heresiarch", founder of one of these schools, came to prominence in the year 134. Other Egyptian founders of such schools, Valentinus and Carpocrates, belong to the same period. Valentinus had already moved to Rome in 140, under the pontificate of Pope Hyginus (Irenæus, Adv. Hær., III, iv, 3), after having preached his doctrines in Egypt, his native country.As Duchesne (op. cit., I, 331) well remarks, one cannot believe that these heretical manifestations represented all the Alexandrine Christianity. These schools, precisely because they are nothing but schools, suppose a Church, "the Great Church", as Celsus calls it; such aberration, precisely because labelled with their authors' names, testify to the existence of the orthodox tradition in the country where they originated. This tradition, from which heresies of such a power of diffusion could separate themselves without putting its very existence in jeopardy, must have been endowed with a vitality which cannot be accounted for without at least half a century of normal growth and organization under the guidance strong and vigilant bishops. We may, therefore, safely conclude as that as early as the middle decades of the first century there was in Alexandria, and probably in the neighboring nomes, or provinces, Christian communities consisting principally of Hellenistic Jews and of those pious men (phoboumenoi ton Theon) who had embraced the tenets and practices of Judaism without becoming regular proselytes. These communities must have had some numerical importance, for on the one hand the Jews were exceedingly numerous (over one million) in Egypt, and particularly in Alexandria, where they constituted two-fifths of the whole population; and on the other hand the philosophical eclecticism that generally prevailed in Alexandria at that time co-operated in favour of Christian ideas with the great doctrinal tolerance then obtaining throughout Judaism, to the extent, indeed, as Duchesne tersely puts it, that one might think like Philo or like Akiba, believe in the resurrection of the flesh or in its final annihilation, expect the Messias or ridicule that hope, philosophize like Ecclesiastes or like the Wisdom of Solomon (op. cit., I, 122). Along with this Judaizing church, whose hopes and expectations were centered in Jerusalem and the Temple, who accepted Christianity and yet continued to observe the Law, there was another Church, decidedly Gentile -- we might say, Christian -- in its character and aspirations, as well as in its practices. It is difficult to surmise what the relations of those two churches to one another were in their details. It is very probable that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus, by putting an end to the hopes of many among the judaizing Church, brought them over to the Great Church, which henceforth gained rapidly in numbers and prestige and soon became the only orthodox Christian Church.

2. Chronology of Early Episcopate. Eusebius, both in his "Chronicles" and in his "Ecclesiastical History" (cf. Harnack, "Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur", I, 1, pp. 70-208), registers the names and years of pontificate of ten bishops supposed to have occupied in succession the see of Alexandria prior to the accession of Demetrius (188-9). Those names he took from the now-lost "Chronology" of Julius Africanus, who visited Egypt in the early portion of the third century. They are as follows: Anianus, 22 years; Abilius, 13; Cerdo, 11; Primus, 12; Justus, 11; Eumenes, 13; Marcus, 10; Celadion, 14; Agripinus, 12; Julianus, 10. Dates are also given, each bishop being entered under the year of reign of the Roman Emperor in which his accession took place. Thus Anianus is listed under the eighth year of Nero (A.D. 62-3). It seems certain, however, that these synchronistic indications do not belong to the list as found by Julius Africanus, but were computed by himself, from Demetrius down, on the years of pontificate of the several bishops. The same writer (Harnack, "Chronologie", I, 1, p. 706) is authority for another tradition preserved also by Eusebius, to the effect that Christianity was first introduced in Egypt by St. Mark the Evangelist in the third year of Claudius (A.D. 43), only one year after St. Peter established his see in Rome, and one year before Evodius had been raised to the see of Antioch. He preached there his gospel and founded Churches in Antioch. Little is added by Eusebius, viz., that according to Clement of Alexandria Mark had come to Rome with St. Peter (probably after Agrippa's death in 44), and that, according to Papias, after Peter's death (probably 64) Mark had written there the Gospel that bears his name (see Harnack, Chronologie, I, 1, pp. 652-3). This latter point is confirmed by Irenæus, op. cit., III, i, 2: "Post vero horum [Petro et Pauli] excessum, Marcus, discipulus et interpres Petri, et ipse quæ Petro nuntiata erant per scripta nobis tradidit."

Other chronological traditions, often mere variations of those just related, concerning the apostolate and death of St. Mark, have been handed down mostly by the Oriental compilers of chronicles. They are strongly legendary and often conflict with one another and with the Eusebian traditions. In more than one instance they seem to have originated from a misunderstanding of Eusebius's text, of which we know there was a Coptic translation, or from an effort to harmonize or supplement the traditions reported (but not confirmed) by that writer. Until these Oriental sources have been critically edited and their chronology brought out of its chaotic state, it is impossible to make use of them to any considerable extent. It seems, however, certain (1) that St. Mark died a martyr, though the constant tradition that his martyrdom was on Easter day, and on the 24th or 25th of April seems to be worthless, seeing that from the year 45 to the end of the first century Easter never fell on either of those dates; (2) that, having temporarily left Egypt to go (or to return) to the Pentapolis, St. Mark had appointed Anianus his successor several years prior to his own death. Severus of Nesteraweh, a bishop of the ninth century, says that it was seven years before his martyrdom. It is remarkable that Eusebius, while stating that Anianus succeeded St. Mark in the eighth year of Nero (AD 62-3), does not mention Mark's death (as in the case of St. Peter). Probably he had found no tradition on that point. The fact, however, that he gives Anianus as the first bishop of Alexandria shows that, in his mind, the two events were not contemporaneous. For if Anianus had taken possession of the see on St. Mark's death, he would have been the second, not the first bishop. There is some reason to suspect the correctness of traditions transmitted by Julius Africanus through Eusebius. The round number of ten bishops for a period of which we otherwise know nothing, the fact that in every case the pontificate existed of complete years only without extra months and days, the further fact that we find in that short list, two pontificates of ten years, two of eleven, two of twelve, two of thirteen, which would seem to indicate that the other two were originally fourteen years each -- all this might suggest that the list of Julius Africanus is to at least some extent artificial, and based on a uniform number of twelve years for each pontificate, giving a sum total of one hundred and twenty years for the list. One might surmise that the list was originally supposed to start from St. Mark's death, and later on the enthronement of Anianus was taken as its beginning, his pontificate being, as a consequence, increased by from four to eight years. Nor is it, perhaps, entirely fortuitous that the different recensions of the "Chronicon" of Eusebius (the Armenian recension, for instance) count so very near 144 years (12 x 12) from St. Mark's arrival in Egypt to Demetrius. It would not be difficult to find other instances of chronologies of predocumentary times thus artificially rounded out on the basis of the numbers ten and twelve.

We have, perhaps, a relic of an entirely different tradition in a remark to found in the "Chronicon Orientale" of Peter Ibn Râhib, namely, that after the pontificate of Abilius there was a vacancy of three years, owing to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem under Titus. If we had not the list of Julius Africanus, such a statement might not seem devoid of plausibility. As we have seen before, the first Christian community of Alexandria consisted chiefly of Jews and we should naturally suppose that its first pastors were chosen from among the Jews. At any rate they were regarded as Jews by the Government. Now it is known that, after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, Vespasian adopted measures of extreme rigor against the Jewish population of Egypt, lest they should try to make their temple of Leontopolis the national centre of their race, and thus defeat his very purpose in wiping out the existence of the Temple of Jerusalem. It was not until A.D. 73, when this obnoxious temple was, in its turn, destroyed, that the persecution ceased and the Jews were restored to their former privilege of free worship. Supposing that the predecessor of Abilius died in A.D. 70, it would appear likely enough that the see should have remained vacant during the time of the persecution.

3. Nature of Early Episcopate. There is much discussion as to the nature of the early episcopate in Egypt. Tradition seems to point to a collective episcopate consisting of twelve presbyters with a bishop at their head. St. Jerome, in a letter to Evangelus (P.L., XXII, 1194), insisting on the dignity of the priesthood, says, "At Alexandria, from the time of St. Mark the Evangelist to that of the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius [middle of the third century] the presbyters of Alexandria used to call bishop one they elected from among themselves and raised to a higher standing, just as the army makes an emperor, or the deacons call archdeacon, one from their own body whom they know to be of active habits". This is confirmed by: (1) a passage of a letter of Severus of Antioch, written from Egypt between 518 and 538. Speaking of a certain Isaias who adduced an ancient canon to prove the validity of his episcopal ordination although performed by a single bishop, Severus says: "It was also customary for the bishop of the city famous for the orthodoxy of its faith, the city of Alexandria, to be appointed by priests. Later, however, in agreement with a canon which obtained everywhere, the sacramental institution of their bishop took place by the hands of the bishops." (2) A passage of the annals of Eutychius, Melchite Patriarch of Alexandria who flourished in the early decades of the tenth century: "St. Mark along with Ananias [Anianus] made twelve priests to be with the patriarch; so that when this should be wanting they might elect one out of the twelve priests and the remaining eleven should lay their hands upon his head and bless him and appoint him patriarch; and should after this choose a man of note and make him priest with them in the place of the one who had been made patriarch from among the twelve priests, in such sort that they should always be twelve. This custom, that the priests of Alexandria should appoint the patriarch from the twelve priests, did not come to an end till the time of Alexander patriarch of Alexandria, one of the three hundred and eighteen [the fathers of Nicæa] who forbade the presbyters [in the future] to appoint the patriarch, but decreed that on the death of the patriarch the bishops should convene and appoint the patriarch, and he furthermore decreed that on the death of the patriarch they should elect a man of note from whichsoever place, from among those twelve priests or not . . . and appoint him" (tr. from the Arabic text ed. Cheikho in "Corpus. Script. Christ. Orientalium; Scriptores Arabici", Ser. IIIa. tom. VI, 95, 96). Finally, we read in the apophthegms on the Egyptian monk Poemen (Butler, "Lausiac History of Palladius") that certain heretics came to Poemen and began to scoff at the Archbishop of Alexandria as having ordination (cheirotonian) from priests. The old man did not answer, but he said to the brothers: "Prepare the table, make them eat, and dismiss them in peace." It is generally supposed that the heretics in question were Arians and really intended to make Poemen believe that the then Archbishop of Alexandria had been ordained by priests, and St. Athanasius is supposed to have been that archbishop. Now, as it is a well-known fact that St. Athanasius was consecrated by bishops, that accusation is considered one of the many calumnies the Arians used to spread against him. If this interpretation be true, the Lausiac text proves nothing for the nature of the early Alexandrian episcopate. But it seems highly improbable that the Arians should have dared to assert what everyone in Egypt in the least familiar with contemporary events, must have known to be false. In fact, the Lausiac text is susceptible of a more plausible interpretation, to wit, that the episcopal character of the Archbishop of Alexandria was to be traced to simple presbyters, while in other churches the Apostolic succession had been transmitted from the very beginning through an uninterrupted line of bishops. In this case the Lausiac would have been the oldest case of the tradition transmitted by Jerome, Severus, and Eutychius, for Poemen flourished in the first half of the fifth century (Dict. Christ. Biogr. s. v.), or even as early as the latter half of the fourth century, if Charles Gore is right in his argument that Rufinus visited that holy hermit in 375 (Journal of Theological Studies, III, 280). Moreover, that the bishops of Alexandria originally were not only elected but also appointed by presbyters is, indirectly at least, confirmed by another tradition for which Eutychius is the authority, to wit, that, till Demetrius, there was no other bishop in Egypt than the Bishop of Alexandria. This was denied by Solerius (Hist. Chron. Patr. Alex., 8* = 10*) and others, but we shall see in the following section that their reasons are not conclusive (cf. Harnack, "Miss u. Ausbreitung", 2d. ed. II, 133, n. 3). The tradition that the early bishops of Alexandria were elected and appointed by a college of presbyters is therefore, if not certain, at least highly probable. On the other hand, it seems almost certain that that custom came to an end much earlier than Eutychius, or even Jerome, would have it. Significant is the fact that they disagree on the terminus ad quem; still more significant that Severus of Antioch is silent on that point. Besides, several passages of the works of Origen and Clement of Alexandria can hardly be understood without supposing that the mode of episcopal election and ordination was then the same throughout the rest of the Christian world (see Cabrol in his "Dict. d'archéologie chrét", s. v. Alexandrie: Election du Patriarche).

We may not dismiss the question without recalling the use which Presbyterians, since Selden, have made of that tradition to uphold their views on the early organization of the Church. It suffices to say that their theory rests, after all, on the gratuitous assumption (to put it as mildly as possible) that the presbyters who used to elect the Bishop of Alexandria, were priests as understood in the now current meaning of this word. Such is not the tradition; according to Eutychius himself, Selden's chief authority, the privilege of patriarchal election was vested not in the priests in general, but in a college of twelve priests on whom that power had been conferred by St. Mark. They were in that sense an episcopal college. Later on, when it became necessary to establish resident bishops in the provinces, the appointees may have been selected from the college of presbyters, while still retaining their former quality of members of the episcopal college. So that, little by little, the power of patriarchal election passed into the hands of regular bishops. The transfer would have been gradual and natural; which would explain the incertitude of the witnesses of the tradition as to the time when the old order of things disappeared. Eutychius may have been influenced in his statement by the fourth Nicene canon. As for St. Jerome, he may have meant Demetrius and Heraclas, instead of Heraclas and Dionysius, for he may have been aware of the other tradition handed down by Eutychius, to the effect that those two patriarchs were the first to ordain bishops since St. Mark (see below).

4. The Episcopate in the Provinces.-- Delegated Bishops or Itinerant Bishops. We have said that according to the ancient tradition handed down by Eutychius, the bishop of Alexandria was for a long time the only bishop in Egypt. Eutychius's words are as follows: "From Anianus, who was appointed the Patriarch of Alexander by Mark the Evangelist, until Demetrius, Patriarch of Alexandria (and he was the eleventh Patriarch of Alexandria), there was no bishop in the province [sic -- read provinces -- see below] of Egypt [Arabic Misr], and the patriarchs his predecessors had appointed no bishop. And when Demetrius became patriarch he appointed three bishops, and he is the first Patriarch of Alexandria who set the bishops over the provinces. And when he died, Heraclas was made Patriarch of Alexandria, and he appointed twenty bishops (translated from the edition of L. Cheikho, in Corp. Scrip. Christ. Orient.: Script Arabici", ser. III, tom. VI, I, p. 96). It has been objected against this tradition that the Emperor Hadrian, writing to Servanius on the religious conditions of Egypt (Vopiscus, "Vita Saturnini", 8), speaks of Christian bishops; but this letter is now generally considered a forgery of the third century (cf. Harnack, "Mission u. Ausbreitung des Christentums", 2d ed., II, 133, n. 3), and even if it were genuine it would be necessary to know exactly what Hadrian meant by the word bishop; we shall see that it could be used in a sense rather different from the current meaning. A stronger objection is taken from the "Livers of the Patriarch of Alexandria" by Severus of Ashmunein, where we read that three of the early patriarchs -- Cerdo, Celadion, and Julian -- were elected by bishops as well as by the people. It is far from certain, however, that the word bishop in these three cases has its ordinary meaning. In the case of Cerdo, the text reads: "When the priests and the bishops, who were representing the patriarch in the towns, heard of his death they were grieved, and they all went to Alexandria and, having taken counsel with orthodox people", etc. It seems evident that these "bishops" were nothing but delegated bishops, acting in virtue of a special and temporary, not an ordinary and permanent delegation of powers as ordinary bishops (see below); for in this case, delegation, being a matter of course, would not be mentioned. They were not bishops in the ordinary canonical sense of the word. In Celadion's case the text says: "The bishops who were in Alexandria in those days" -- i.e., probably who were stationed there, resided there, which certainly cannot be understood of ordinary bishops, whose residence would have been in their respective dioceses. There was room for but one such bishop in Alexandria. Still clearer is the passage concerning Julian: "A party of bishops from the synod assembled with the people of Alexandria", etc. What was that synod? Evidently not a council which happened to be in session, for in that case all certainly would have taken part in the election. Besides, if Celadion's predecessor had called a synod or council, Severus, or the author from whom he borrowed that meagre biography, would not have failed to swell it with this important event. There seems to be no other solution but to see in that synod a body of presbyters or delegated bishops who were habitually in residence in Alexandria, a body of men who could be called bishops, and yet had no ordinary jurisdiction, as is evidenced, first, by the express statement in Cerdo's case and, secondly, by the fact that they usually resided in Alexandria, as stated or implied in the other two cases. Such a body of men the twelve presbyters of Eutychius must have been; so that those three passages, far from contradicting Eutychius's testimony, rather confirm it. We find, however, a more direct confirmation of Eutychius's statement in another, so far equally misinterpreted, passage of Severus. In the biography of Julian, the immediate predecessor of Demetrius, we read: "After this patriarch, the bishop of Alexandria did nor remain always there, but he used to go out secretly and organize the hierarchy [yausim kahanat, literally, "ordain clergy"], as St. Mark the Evangelist had done." The same remark is found in the "Chronicon Orientale" of Peter Ibn Râhib, with the variation, "No bishop always remained in Alexandria"; and the omission of the last words "as St. Mark" etc. We know that the words yausim kahanat have so far been rendered "ordinationes sacerdotum faciebant" (Renaudor, Hist. Patr. Alexandr.. p. 18), "ordained priests" (Evetts, "Hist. of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria" in Graffin-Nau's "Patrologia Orientalis", I, 154). There is no doubt, however, that the word kahanat (plural of kâhin) as a rule stands for bishops and deacons as well as for priests. That it really is so in this case is made clear from a comparison of three version of the same episode of the life of St. Mark. The author of the second biography in Severus's work says that the Evangelist, seeing that the people of Alexandria were plotting against his life, went out from their city (secretly, adds Severus of Nesteraweh, Bargés, op. cit., p. 56), and returned to the Pentapolis, where he remained for two years, appointing bishops, priests, and deacons in all its provinces. The Melchite Martyrology of Alexandria, under 25 April, says that St. Mark went from Alexandria to Barca (Pentapolis) and beatified the Churches of Christ, "instituting bishops and the rest of the clergy [kahanat] of that country". It is evident that in the mind of the author of that latter passage kahanat, on the one hand, and "bishops, priests, and deacons", on the other, are interchangeable.) Finally, in the "Chronicon Orientale", where the same episode of St. Mark's life is related, we find simply: "appointing clergy [kahanat] for them", without special mention of the bishops. And the argument will appear all the more convincing if we notice that the remark of Julian's biography must have had in view the labours of St. Mark in the Pentapolis, when he added "as St. Mark the Evangelist had done", for neither the oriental nor any other sources record a further instance of ordinations performed by St. Mark outside of Alexandria.